Case T-639/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014 — DEI v Commission
Date: 2014-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, cost price, electricity supply, infringement of EU law, price of energy








C_2014395EN.01005401.xml










10.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/54






Action brought on 22 August 2014 — DEI v Commission
(Case T-639/14)
(2014/C 395/67)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Ikonomou, K Sinodinos and E. Salaka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the Commission decisions which are contained in the defendant’s letter of 12 June 2014 to the applicant and relate respectively to the two complaints which the applicant submitted in turn to the defendant challenging the unlawful State aid which resulted, initially, from the application of decision No 346/2012 of the Greek regulatory authority for energy and, subsequently, from the award of the special arbitration tribunal in the context of the permanent arbitration of the abovementioned regulatory authority for energy — both of which obliged the applicant to supply electricity to the company Alouminion A.E. at below cost price — and, specifically, the Commission’s express decision not to investigate further the second of the abovementioned complaints from the applicant, on the ground that no infringement of the State aid rules was established, and its implicit decision not to investigate further the first of the abovementioned complaints;










—


order the defendant to pay its costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The first plea alleges infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as the defendant did not comply with the procedural requirements that are laid down for the adoption of the contested measure.










2.


The second plea alleges a manifest error of assessment as regards the law and the facts in interpreting and applying Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, relating to the defendant’s conclusion that the measure complained of cannot be imputed to the State.










3.


The third plea alleges a manifest error of assessment as regards the law and the facts in interpreting and applying Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, relating to the defendant’s conclusion that the measure complained of does not result in the grant of an unfair advantage to the company Alouminion A.E.










4.


The fourth plea alleges infringement of the obligation to state sufficient reasons and to examine all the relevant matters of fact and law and infringement of the principle of sound administration, in particular in the light of the defendant’s failure to set out sufficiently all the reasons for which the matters of fact and law that the applicant placed before it did not establish the existence of the alleged unlawful State aid and to state full reasons for the substantial change to the position which the defendant itself had adopted in previous cases, as regards fulfilment of the criterion of imputability to the State and the calculation of the price for the supply of electricity to a consumer such as the company Alouminion A.E., and in the light of the defendant’s failure to carry out any substantive investigation relating to the two abovementioned complaints from the applicant.