EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/41

Action brought on 9 December 2011 — Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki v Commission

(Case T-635/11)

2012/C 32/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (Maroussi Attikis, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, lawyers, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25);

— In the alternative, annul the contested decision to the extent it applies to the applicant; or

— Further in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU in determining that the measure at stake constituted an aid measure by: — identifying that the applicant benefited from an economic advantage in the form of a ‘fiscal discrimination’ in the amount of Euro 7,20 per Ticket; — finding that the measure involved forgone State resources; — considering that the measure was selective in favour of the applicant; and — concluding that the measure distorted competition and had an effect on trade between Member States.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s procedural right of defence by completely ignoring the applicant’s Observations and Additional Comments submitted by the applicant in the exercise of its procedural rights following the Opening Decision.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide adequate reasoning to enable the applicant to understand and this Court to review the reasoning based on which it found that the applicant benefited from a selective advantage, that any such advantage involved forgone State revenues and would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the contested decision orders recovery of amounts from the applicant it violates: — Article 14(1), first sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), pursuant to which recovery shall relate to the aid received by the beneficiary, since the defendant failed to correctly quantify in the contested decision the amount of aid that the applicant may have received; and — Article 14(1), second sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since recovery in this case infringes general principles of EU law, namely: the principle of legitimate expectations; the principle of legal certainty; and the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)