# C_2017402EN.01004301.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/43

---

Action brought on 08 September 2017 – Teollisuuden Voima v Commission

(Case T-620/17)

(2017/C 402/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (Eurajoki, Finland) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, Y. Utzschneider, K. Struckmann and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1021 of 10 January 2017 on State aid SA.44727 2016/C (ex 2016/N) which France is planning to implement in favour of the Areva Group (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1021 of 10 January 2017 on State aid SA.44727 2016/C (ex 2016/N) which France is planning to implement in favour of the Areva Group (1);

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, due to the excessive redactions of the published version of the contested decision that prevent the applicant from ascertaining the reasons for it and the Court from carrying out its review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, due to the excessive redactions of the published version of the contested decision that prevent the applicant from ascertaining the reasons for it and the Court from carrying out its review.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning the restoration of the Areva Group’s long-term viability.






  — | The applicant refers in this regard to the Commission Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, which require that a restructuring plan restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions (2). |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning the restoration of the Areva Group’s long-term viability.

—

The applicant refers in this regard to the Commission Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, which require that a restructuring plan restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions (2).

2

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the assessment of the proposed measures to limit distortions of competition in the main market in which the Areva Group will be active after restructuring. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the assessment of the proposed measures to limit distortions of competition in the main market in which the Areva Group will be active after restructuring.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in making the State aid approval subject to inappropriate and insufficient conditions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in making the State aid approval subject to inappropriate and insufficient conditions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in finding the State aid compatible with the internal market, in view of the fact that the proposed restructuring plan does not provide sufficient guarantees that Areva will be able to deliver on the timely completion of the OL3 Project, thus running contrary to certain other EU Treaty objectives which should have been taken in account when examining the compatibility of the State aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in finding the State aid compatible with the internal market, in view of the fact that the proposed restructuring plan does not provide sufficient guarantees that Areva will be able to deliver on the timely completion of the OL3 Project, thus running contrary to certain other EU Treaty objectives which should have been taken in account when examining the compatibility of the State aid.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 155, p. 23.

1

(2)  OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1, point 47.

2

---