# C_2018032EN.01004002.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/40 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Estampaciones Rubí v Commission

(Case T-775/17)

(2018/C 032/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Estampaciones Rubí, SAU (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: D. Armesto Macías and K. Caminos García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare admissible the present action, as well as the documents lodged as annexes; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | by a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit full versions of the following documents, removing if necessary any confidential data of third parties contained therein:
(a)
Informal message in reply to the submissions of 22 February and of 4 and 12 March 2013 (Álava), of 26 March 2013; (b)
Informal message in reply to the submission of 7 November (Álava), of 4 December 2012; | (a) | Informal message in reply to the submissions of 22 February and of 4 and 12 March 2013 (Álava), of 26 March 2013; | (b) | Informal message in reply to the submission of 7 November (Álava), of 4 December 2012; |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | Informal message in reply to the submissions of 22 February and of 4 and 12 March 2013 (Álava), of 26 March 2013; | | | | |
| (b) | Informal message in reply to the submission of 7 November (Álava), of 4 December 2012; | | | | |

| — | annul the decisions of the Commission set out in those documents; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in the alternative, declare that the Treaties have been infringed, as a result of the Commission’s silence and order it to respond to the applicant’s request submitted in writing on 31 July 2017, so that the applicant may, as a beneficiary of the aid in question, exercise the procedural rights granted to it by EU law in the context of a formal procedure assessing the compatibility of that aid; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks, primarily, the annulment of the Commission’s decisions denying the compatibility with EU law of certain tax-related aid received by the applicant in the form of a tax credit of 45 % on particular investment projects, which decisions were notified to the Spanish tax authorities represented by the Diputación Foral de Álava, by letters from the Commission entitled ‘informal message’ and ‘mensaje informal’, of 4 December 2012 and 26 March 2013, to which the applicant gained access in the course of national proceedings.

The present action seeks, in the alternative, a declaration that the Commission failed to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, by its silence as regards the applicant’s request of 31 July 2017 asking the Commission to take a position on the binding or non-binding legal nature of the aforementioned ‘informal messages’ and, if necessary, to grant the applicant the opportunity to express its views on all the relevant issues in the procedure.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions were adopted without regard to the applicable minimum procedural guarantees
—
The applicant argues in this respect that the Commission disregarded the applicable minimum procedural guarantees, by taking a position in the informal messages concerning the incompatibility of a State aid without having followed the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. That failure to observe the procedure entails an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. | — | The applicant argues in this respect that the Commission disregarded the applicable minimum procedural guarantees, by taking a position in the informal messages concerning the incompatibility of a State aid without having followed the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. That failure to observe the procedure entails an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant argues in this respect that the Commission disregarded the applicable minimum procedural guarantees, by taking a position in the informal messages concerning the incompatibility of a State aid without having followed the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. That failure to observe the procedure entails an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU
—
The applicant argues, in this respect, that the contested decisions err in finding the aid incompatible on the ground that it allegedly lacks an incentive effect. | — | The applicant argues, in this respect, that the contested decisions err in finding the aid incompatible on the ground that it allegedly lacks an incentive effect. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant argues, in this respect, that the contested decisions err in finding the aid incompatible on the ground that it allegedly lacks an incentive effect. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 265 TFEU
—
The applicant argues, in this respect, that the Commission’s failure to respond to the applicant’s request that it take a position on the legal nature (binding or non-binding) of the ‘informal messages’ and, if necessary, grant the applicant the opportunity to express its views in that procedure, gave rise to a breach of the Treaties, to the applicant’s detriment. | — | The applicant argues, in this respect, that the Commission’s failure to respond to the applicant’s request that it take a position on the legal nature (binding or non-binding) of the ‘informal messages’ and, if necessary, grant the applicant the opportunity to express its views in that procedure, gave rise to a breach of the Treaties, to the applicant’s detriment. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant argues, in this respect, that the Commission’s failure to respond to the applicant’s request that it take a position on the legal nature (binding or non-binding) of the ‘informal messages’ and, if necessary, grant the applicant the opportunity to express its views in that procedure, gave rise to a breach of the Treaties, to the applicant’s detriment. | | |

---