CELEX: 62014TN0392
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-392/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014  — Gutser v Commission

28.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 245/28
            
         Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Gutser v Commission
   (Case T-392/14)
   2014/C 245/38
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Gutser, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain, relating to the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements and that it infringes Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their selective nature.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their effect on inter-Community trade.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and infringed Article 107 TFEU in characterising the investors as beneficiaries of the aid. In addition, the decision is not supported by a sufficient statement of reasons.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ordering the recovery of the aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.