# C_2019213EN.01007301.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/73

---

Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Highgate Capital Management v Commission

(Case T-280/19)

(2019/C 213/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Highgate Capital Management LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Struys, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint (Case SA.53105 — Alleged aid to Eurobank Ergasias through sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria) at least insofar as it relates to the breaches of the restructuring commitments in Case SA.43364 and Case SA.43363; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint (Case SA.53105 — Alleged aid to Eurobank Ergasias through sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria) at least insofar as it relates to the breaches of the restructuring commitments in Case SA.43364 and Case SA.43363;

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision breached essential procedural requirements and violated the following:






  — | Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (1) and point 72 of the Code of Best Practices for the Conduct of State Aid Control Procedures; (2) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision breached essential procedural requirements and violated the following:

—

Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (1) and point 72 of the Code of Best Practices for the Conduct of State Aid Control Procedures; (2)

| — | the applicant’s right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s right to be heard;

| — | the duty to state reasons, protected under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

the duty to state reasons, protected under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | the applicant’s right to appeal, protected under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s right to appeal, protected under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly concluded that (i) the commitments given in Case SA.43364 in relation to the State aid received by Piraeus Bank, and (ii) the commitments given in Case SA.43363 in relation to the State aid received by Eurobank Ergasias, did not apply ratione temporis since the closing of the sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria will take place after 31 December 2018. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly concluded that (i) the commitments given in Case SA.43364 in relation to the State aid received by Piraeus Bank, and (ii) the commitments given in Case SA.43363 in relation to the State aid received by Eurobank Ergasias, did not apply ratione temporis since the closing of the sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria will take place after 31 December 2018.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.

(2)  OJ 2018 C 253, p. 14.

---