# C_2019072EN.01004102.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/41

---

Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-7/19)

(2019/C 72/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision C(2018) 6268 final of 28 September 2018 on State aid SA.51981 (2018/FC); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision C(2018) 6268 final of 28 September 2018 on State aid SA.51981 (2018/FC);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State guarantees granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised by the Construction Decision and that they do not constitute state aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State guarantees granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised by the Construction Decision and that they do not constitute state aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the aid in the form of a DKK 10 million capital injection (in excess of the DKK 500 million authorised by the Planning Decision) is compatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the aid in the form of a DKK 10 million capital injection (in excess of the DKK 500 million authorised by the Planning Decision) is compatible with the internal market.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised in the Construction Decision and that the ones granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute aid, while those granted to Femern A/S are compatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised in the Construction Decision and that the ones granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute aid, while those granted to Femern A/S are compatible with the internal market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans granted in excess of the DKK 1 445 million budget, have been authorised in the Planning Decision and that they constitute State aid that is compatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans granted in excess of the DKK 1 445 million budget, have been authorised in the Planning Decision and that they constitute State aid that is compatible with the internal market.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the tax advantages do not constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the tax advantages do not constitute State aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.

---