CELEX: 62021TN0102
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-102/21: Action brought on 18 February 2021 — Bastion Holding and Others v Commission

10.5.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/58
            
         
      Action brought on 18 February 2021 — Bastion Holding and Others v Commission
      (Case T-102/21)
      (2021/C 182/78)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Bastion Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and 35 other applicants (represented by: B. Braeken and X.Y.G. Versteeg, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  principally, annul the contested decision C(2020) 8286 final of 20 November 2020 concerning the amendment of the scheme SA.57712 — COVID-19: direct grant scheme to support the fixed costs for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the COVID-19 outbreak (SA.59535 (2020/N)), both in so far as it relates to (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, and (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to either (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, or (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in its entirety;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  additionally, order the Commission to bear the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging the failure of the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure by wrongly deciding that the contested State aid measure raises no doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging procedural shortcomings by the Commission, as the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons.