# C_2017121EN.01003802.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/38 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 February 2017 — Duferco Long Products v Commission

(Case T-93/17)

(2017/C 121/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Duferco Long Products SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and M. Favart, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul Article 1(f) and Article 2 of the Commission decision of 20 January 2016 on the State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay 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 manifest errors of law and appraisal on the part of the Commission in the examination of the pari passu nature of the sixth measure declared incompatible with the common market. This plea is divided into two parts.
—
first part, according to which, contrary to the Commission’s assessment, the transaction at issue was indeed carried out pari passu; —
second part, according to which the Commission’s assessment of the pari passu nature of the transaction is vitiated by serious errors of calculation and appraisal. | — | first part, according to which, contrary to the Commission’s assessment, the transaction at issue was indeed carried out pari passu; | — | second part, according to which the Commission’s assessment of the pari passu nature of the transaction is vitiated by serious errors of calculation and appraisal. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | first part, according to which, contrary to the Commission’s assessment, the transaction at issue was indeed carried out pari passu; | | | | |
| — | second part, according to which the Commission’s assessment of the pari passu nature of the transaction is vitiated by serious errors of calculation and appraisal. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and appraisal on the part of the Commission in the examination of the private investor in a market economy test. This plea is divided into four parts:
—
first part, according to which, in confusing the applicability of the private investor in a market economy test with the application thereof, the Commission erred in law and incorrectly applied that test; —
second part, according to which, in not carrying out a comparative analysis or using another assessment method in respect of the transaction at issue, the Commission infringed the principle of the private investor in a market economy as well as the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the appraisal of that test; —
third part, according to which the Commission breached the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the assessment of the private investor in a market economy test; —
fourth part, according to which the Walloon Region provided a large number of documents demonstrating that Foreign Strategic Investment Holding, a subsidiary of Société Wallonne de Gestion et de Participations, acted in the manner of a private investor in a market economy. | — | first part, according to which, in confusing the applicability of the private investor in a market economy test with the application thereof, the Commission erred in law and incorrectly applied that test; | — | second part, according to which, in not carrying out a comparative analysis or using another assessment method in respect of the transaction at issue, the Commission infringed the principle of the private investor in a market economy as well as the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the appraisal of that test; | — | third part, according to which the Commission breached the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the assessment of the private investor in a market economy test; | — | fourth part, according to which the Walloon Region provided a large number of documents demonstrating that Foreign Strategic Investment Holding, a subsidiary of Société Wallonne de Gestion et de Participations, acted in the manner of a private investor in a market economy. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | first part, according to which, in confusing the applicability of the private investor in a market economy test with the application thereof, the Commission erred in law and incorrectly applied that test; | | | | | | | | |
| — | second part, according to which, in not carrying out a comparative analysis or using another assessment method in respect of the transaction at issue, the Commission infringed the principle of the private investor in a market economy as well as the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the appraisal of that test; | | | | | | | | |
| — | third part, according to which the Commission breached the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the assessment of the private investor in a market economy test; | | | | | | | | |
| — | fourth part, according to which the Walloon Region provided a large number of documents demonstrating that Foreign Strategic Investment Holding, a subsidiary of Société Wallonne de Gestion et de Participations, acted in the manner of a private investor in a market economy. | | | | | | | | |

---