# C_2017239EN.01004702.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/47

---

Action brought on 30 April 2017 — Metrans v Commission and INEA

(Case T-262/17)

(2017/C 239/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Metrans a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Schwarz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul with immediate effect item listed under the code 2015-CZ-TM-0330-M, entitled Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III and item listed under the code 2015-CZ-TM-0406-W, entitled Intermodal Terminal Melnik, Phases 2 and 3, in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 5 August 2016 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 5 November 2015 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul with immediate effect item listed under the code 2015-CZ-TM-0330-M, entitled Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III and item listed under the code 2015-CZ-TM-0406-W, entitled Intermodal Terminal Melnik, Phases 2 and 3, in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 5 August 2016 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 5 November 2015 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme;

| — | annul or alternatively declare that the grant agreement under the connecting Europe facility (CEF) — transport sector No INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2015/1133813 concluded between Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and Advanced World Transport a.s. (AWT) (relating to action 2015-CZ-TM-0330-M titled Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov) is null and void or order INEA to terminate the said grant agreement relating to Paskov; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or alternatively declare that the grant agreement under the connecting Europe facility (CEF) — transport sector No INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2015/1133813 concluded between Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and Advanced World Transport a.s. (AWT) (relating to action 2015-CZ-TM-0330-M titled Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov) is null and void or order INEA to terminate the said grant agreement relating to Paskov;

| — | annul or alternatively declare that the grant agreement under the connecting Europe facility (CEF) — transport sector No INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2015/1138714 concluded between Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and České přístavy, a.s. (Czech Ports) (relating to action 2015-CZ-TM-0406-W titled Intermodal Terminal Melnik, Phases 2 and 3) is null and void or order INEA to terminate the said grant agreement relating to Melnik; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or alternatively declare that the grant agreement under the connecting Europe facility (CEF) — transport sector No INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2015/1138714 concluded between Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and České přístavy, a.s. (Czech Ports) (relating to action 2015-CZ-TM-0406-W titled Intermodal Terminal Melnik, Phases 2 and 3) is null and void or order INEA to terminate the said grant agreement relating to Melnik;

| — | order INEA and the Commission to pay jointly and severally the applicant’s costs connected with the legal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order INEA and the Commission to pay jointly and severally the applicant’s costs connected with the legal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of fundamental principles of the EU Treaties relating to the protection of free market and competition on the internal market.






  — | The applicant argues, inter alia, that establishing and ensuring the functioning of the internal market are fundamental principles and obligations upon which the Union is based (Article 26 TFEU). Any measures adopted by the Union must be always in compliance with this defining principle and any measures contrary to it must be always adopted proportionately and in subsidiary manner. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of fundamental principles of the EU Treaties relating to the protection of free market and competition on the internal market.

—

The applicant argues, inter alia, that establishing and ensuring the functioning of the internal market are fundamental principles and obligations upon which the Union is based (Article 26 TFEU). Any measures adopted by the Union must be always in compliance with this defining principle and any measures contrary to it must be always adopted proportionately and in subsidiary manner.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of Article 93 TFEU and further articles of the TFEU (Articles 3, 26, 93, 107, 119, 170(2), 171(1), Protocol 8 and its Article 1, Protocol 27).






  — | The applicant argues, inter alia, that the contested measure represents aid, which does not meet the need of coordination of transport. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of Article 93 TFEU and further articles of the TFEU (Articles 3, 26, 93, 107, 119, 170(2), 171(1), Protocol 8 and its Article 1, Protocol 27).

—

The applicant argues, inter alia, that the contested measure represents aid, which does not meet the need of coordination of transport.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 and of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 and ancillary laws.






  — | The applicant argues, inter alia, that the award of grants has not complied with all pre-requisite conditions (even if it were compliant with other EU laws), thus the grants should not have been awarded. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 and of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 and ancillary laws.

—

The applicant argues, inter alia, that the award of grants has not complied with all pre-requisite conditions (even if it were compliant with other EU laws), thus the grants should not have been awarded.

---