EN
17.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/53
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging that the aid granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for the universal service obligations for 2020 is not compatible with the internal market because it does not comply with the framework for services of general economic interest (1) (‘the SGEI Framework’), in that: — the Commission did not conduct a complete and sufficient examination of the matter; — Post Danmark’s cost allocation does not comply with paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the compensation for universal service obligations is not compatible with the internal market because the Net Avoided Cost (NAC) calculation is vitiated by errors of law and fact, in that: — the NAC calculation is based on the assumption that the Post Danmark’s transformation has only taken place in the counterfactual scenario; — the Commission does not explain why Post Danmark could not increase prices to cover the excess universal service obligations costs; — the amount resulting from the NAC calculation is excessive as it by far exceeds Post Danmark’s net losses from the universal service obligations activities as reflected in Post Danmark’s 2020 annual report; — errors have been committed in the counterfactual scenario; — the Commission erred is its assessment of the advantages deriving from the following intangible benefits relating to the universal service obligations: (a) intellectual property assets; (b) economies of scale; (c) bargaining power; (d) universal coverage; (e) ubiquity and corporate reputation; — the benchmarking exercise carried out for verifying the results of the NAC calculation is flawed.
(1)
Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (OJ 2012 C 8, p. 15).
Action brought on 27 April 2023 — Arysta Lifescience v EFSA (Case T-222/23) (2023/C 252/65) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Arysta Lifescience (Noguères, France) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Z. Romata, H. Widemann and R. Spangenberg, lawyers) Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul EFSA’s decision dated 17 February 2023 (Ref.
PAD 2022/175) ‘Notification of full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses Captan 80 WG relating to the renewal of the approval of the active substance Captan’; — order EFSA to pay the costs of these proceedings.