Case T-891/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission
Date: 2016-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Denmark, EU financing, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, project of common interest, rail transport, restriction on competition, tunnel








C_2017063EN.01003201.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/32





Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission
(Case T-891/16)
(2017/C 063/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare that the defendant unlawfully failed to act pursuant to Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in that it failed to define its position on the applicants’ complaint of 5 June 2014, concerning State aid granted for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link;










—


order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of potential overcompensation involved in the non-commercial railway fees to be paid by the Danish national railway operator DSB to the third party in question for the use of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of the gratuitous use of State property provided to the third party concerned for the construction of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State guarantees to the third party concerned since this was not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of capital injections to the third party concerned in excess of amounts authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned while the Planning Decision only authorised the grant of State guarantees (Planning Phase).










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned in excess of the budget authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of tax advantages to the third parties concerned which were not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).