CELEX: 62019TN0702
Language: en
Date: 2019-10-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-702/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Compass Overseas Holdings and Others v Commission

13.1.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 10/34
            
         
      Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Compass Overseas Holdings and Others v Commission
      (Case T-702/19)
      (2020/C 10/46)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Compass Overseas Holdings Ltd (Chertsey, United Kingdom), Compass Overseas Holdings No.2 Ltd (Chertsey), Hospitality Holdings Ltd (Chertsey) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in the identification in the contested decision of the reference system.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the Group Financing Exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the Group Financing Exemption discriminates between economic operators.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the Group Financing Exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.