Case T-740/17: Action brought on 2 November 2017 — DEI v European Commission
Date: 2017-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, electrical energy, price of energy, rights of the defence








C_2018032EN.01003302.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/33





Action brought on 2 November 2017 — DEI v European Commission
(Case T-740/17)
(2018/C 032/47)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou Α.Ε. (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, E. Salaka, C. Synodinos, C. Tagaras and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2017 (C(2017) 5622 final) in Case SA.38101 (2015/NN)(ex 2013/CP) — Greece: Alleged State Aid to Aluminium S.A. in the form of electricity tariffs below cost following Arbitration Decision, in so far as it cancels the Commission’s acts of 12 June 2014 and 25 March 2015;










—


Annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2017 (C(2017) 5622 final) in Case SA.38101 (2015/NN)(ex 2013/CP), in so far as it holds that no State aid was granted to Aluminium and, consequently, that the Commission was not required to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU;










—


Annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2017 (C(2017) 5622 final) in Case SA.38101 (2015/NN)(ex 2013/CP), in so far as it holds that DEI’s complaint, concerning the State aid which was granted on the basis of the grounds of Decision 346/2012 of the RAE [the Greek Energy Regulator], had become without object as a result of Decision 1/2013 of the Arbitration Tribunal in the context of the permanent arbitration of the RAE; and










—


order the Commission to pay DEI’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Manifest error of law in the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-228/16 P and contradiction of the decision in that case.










2.


Inadequate execution of the Commission’s obligations arising from Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and infringement of that article and of the right to be heard, and infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons, contradiction and breach of the obligation to examine all relevant matters of fact and law with respect to the finding that the Arbitration Agreement, as a consequence of which the abovementioned arbitration Decision 1/2013 was issued, set ‘clear and objective parameters’ which ‘limited the discretion of the arbitrators’ and had as a ‘logical consequence’ the finally determined electricity tariff.










4.


Manifest error of law in the interpretation and application of the principle of the prudent private investor and of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, as concerns the finding that the electricity tariff determined by the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal is the ‘logical consequence of properly defined parameters in the Arbitration Agreement’.










5.


Manifest error of law in the interpretation and application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, with respect to the finding that the Commission did not have to engage in complex economic assessments and a manifest error of law and a manifest error of assessment with respect to the factual circumstances in so far as the Commission failed to examine crucial issues with respect to finding whether or not there was State Aid.










6.


Manifest error of law in the application of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, and a manifest error of assessment with respect to the factual circumstances as concerns the application of the test of the prudent private market economy operator.










7.


Manifest error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU, infringement of the obligation to state sufficient reasons and a manifest error of assessment with respect to the factual circumstances as regards the decision by the Commission not to further investigate the complaint made by DEI in 2012, pursuant to Article 108 (2) TFEU, on the basis of the finding that that complaint ‘had become without object’ following the issuing of Decision 1/2013 of the Arbitration Tribunal.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015L 248, p. 9).