Order — ECLI:EU:T:2013:676
Date: 2013-12-10
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Action brought on 14 March 2011 - Government of Aragón and Others v Council (Case T-150/11) Language of the case: Spanish Parties Applicants: Government of Aragón (Aragón, Spain), Principado de Asturias, Junta de Castilla y León (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, E. Echeverría Álvarez, M. López Garrido, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: annul Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (f), Article 3(3) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Council Decision 2010/787/EU; and order the Council to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The purpose of this action is to obtain the partial annulment of Council Decision of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (2010/787/EU). In support of their action, the applicants raise three pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, based on a manifest error of assessment of the facts and consequent breach of Article 194 TFEU The Decision makes a manifest error in the assessment of the facts when it states that the small contribution of subsidised coal to the overall energy mix no longer justifies the maintenance of such subsidies for securing the supply of energy in the European Union. In making that error, the Decision at issue infringes one of the objectives of the energy policy established in Article 194 TFEU, which at paragraph (b) establishes the obligation to guarantee to the security of the energy supply of the European Union. 2. Second plea in law, based on breach of the principle of proportionality The requirement of the closure or reduction of aid received pursuant to the Decision at issue for mines which, while not competitive in 2011, may become competitive by 2018, is not proportionate with respect to the objectives pursued by the Decision at issue. Thus, the provisions contested by this action go further than is necessary to guarantee the protection of the environment, insofar as they do not lead to the reduction of the percentage of energy that is produced from carbon. Nor are the contested provisions proportional in order to achieve the objectives of competitiveness of the carbon industry, since (i) they may give rise to the closure in 2018 of mines that are competitive at that time, but by reason of the Decision at issue had had to undertake to close because in 2011 they could not continue without the aid provided for by that decision and (ii) they do not promote the maintenance of competitive mines from an environmental and security point of view. 3. Third plea in law, based on breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations The applicants submit that certain aspects of the Decision at issue, by removing the security of supply as an objective which may be protected by the new rule, breaches the Community principle of protection of legitimate expectations. 4. Fourth plea in law, based on the absence of reasons The applicants submit that the Decision does not give sufficient reasons for the adoption of the measures that depart from those established in the earlier Regulation and the regulatory context in which it exists. ____________