# C_2017338EN.01002001.xml

| 9.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/20

---

Action brought on 26 August 2017 — A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain v Commission

(Case T-578/17)

(2017/C 338/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Heise and M. Lindner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on the non-fiscal aid measures put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others) — SA.43145 (2016/FC) (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on the non-fiscal aid measures put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others) — SA.43145 (2016/FC) (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1); and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:

Infringement of essential formal and procedural requirements under Article 108(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 4(4) and 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

1

| — | The Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights in so far as its decision, which is the subject of the action, was adopted after merely a preliminary examination, even though the Commission was required to open a formal investigation. The applicant bases this argument on the fact that the Commission, having a duty to carry out an assessment of the information and evidence at its disposal, ought to have been concerned about the compatibility of the non-fiscal aid measures unlawfully put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights in so far as its decision, which is the subject of the action, was adopted after merely a preliminary examination, even though the Commission was required to open a formal investigation. The applicant bases this argument on the fact that the Commission, having a duty to carry out an assessment of the information and evidence at its disposal, ought to have been concerned about the compatibility of the non-fiscal aid measures unlawfully put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others).

| — | In so far as the Commission only inadequately or, moreover, in substantial aspects incorrectly examined the information and evidence giving rise to those concerns in the decision which is the subject of the action, the applicant further argues that the Commission failed to meet its obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as the Commission only inadequately or, moreover, in substantial aspects incorrectly examined the information and evidence giving rise to those concerns in the decision which is the subject of the action, the applicant further argues that the Commission failed to meet its obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

---

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

1

---