Case T-365/25: Action brought on 3 June 2025 – Infrastructure Services Luxembourg and Energia Termosolar v Commission
Date: 2025-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Andalusia, Spain, State aid, arbitration, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy, right to property








C_202504061EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4061


28.7.2025






Action brought on 3 June 2025 – Infrastructure Services Luxembourg and Energia Termosolar v Commission


(Case T-365/25)

(C/2025/4061)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Infrastructure Services Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Energia Termosolar BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P.-E. Partsch, P. Paschalidis and S. Thomas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision of 24 March 2025 on the measure State aid SA.54155 (2021/NN) implemented by Spain – Arbitration award to Antin (not yet published in the Official Journal, the ‘contested decision’);










—


in the alternative, annul (i) Article 1, second paragraph, and (ii) Article 3 of the contested decision;










—


further in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the contested decision;










—


even further in the alternative, Article 3 of the contested decision insofar as it instructs the courts of the Member States to issue the anti-suit / anti-enforcement injunctions sought by Spain; and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 108 TFEU, and Article 6 of Council Regulation 2015/1589 (1) in identifying the Award and its implementation as the measures subject to scrutiny.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that the Award constitutes an ‘economic advantage’.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by deciding that the Award and its implementation are imputable to State.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by deciding that the Award and its implementation are selective.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(3) TFEU and the applicants’ right to property by deciding that the aid was incompatible with the internal market because Article 26(2)(C) of the Energy Charter Treaty is contrary to Union law










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of legitimate expectations by deciding that the aid was incompatible with the internal market.










7.


Seventh plea in plea, alleging that the Commission’s finding that the courts of the Member States have to issue anti-suit injunctions against the applicants constitutes a misuse of powers, and a violation of the principle of sincere cooperation and of Article 3(5) TEU.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 108 TFEU and Council Regulation 2015/1589.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to treat the applicants impartially during the formal investigation.






(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 2015 L 248, p. 9).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4061/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)