Case T-271/19: Action brought on 25 April 2019 — Proodeftiki v Commission
Date: 2019-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Central Greece, Greece, State aid, control of State aid, motorway, principle of proportionality, road building, terms for aid, transport infrastructure








C_2019220EN.01003901.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/39






Action brought on 25 April 2019 — Proodeftiki v Commission
(Case T-271/19)
(2019/C 220/50)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Proodeftiki ATE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Panagopoulou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision C(2018) 6717 final of the European Commission of 19 October 2018 on the subject of ‘State Aid S.A. 50233 (2018/N) — Greece, State aid for the construction of Lamia-Xiniada section of the E65 Motorway’;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the applicant’s legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law:






1.


The first plea in law is based on the failure to state reasons with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.1 of the contested decision in connection with the affirmation of the criterion of the contribution of the aid under consideration to the attainment of objectives of common interest.










2.


The second plea in law is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.2 of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation that the criterion of incentive effect for the Concessionaire was met.










3.


The third plea in law is based on manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case at issue with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 and in section 3.3.1.4 of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation of the criterion of the principle of necessity and the principle of proportionality.










4.


The fourth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 60-64) of the contested decision.










5.


The fifth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case at issue with respect to the finding of European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 66-69) of the contested decision.










6.


The sixth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 70-73) of the contested decision.










7.


The seventh plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 75-80) of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation of the criterion of the proportionality of the aid at issue.










8.


The eighth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.5 of the contested decision in connection with the lack of effect on intra-community trade.