CELEX: 62018TN0757
Language: en
Date: 2018-12-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-757/18: Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

25.2.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/38
            
         
      Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission
      (Case T-757/18)
      (2019/C 72/49)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the Commission’s contested decision of 9 August 2018 on the measures to certain Greek casinos SA.28973 — C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009)
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two alternative pleas in law to support that the contested decision infringed its procedural rights and therefore should be annulled.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the part of the contested decision in which the Commission examined whether the alleged state aid measure confers an ‘attractiveness advantage’ should be characterised as a decision not to raise objections adopted following the preliminary examination procedure. Therefore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure because there were serious doubts as to the existence of an attractiveness advantage financed through state resources.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was in any case obliged to reopen the formal investigation procedure by virtue of judgment T-425/11. In fact, the applicant claims that the Commission was, in principle, obliged to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments before the adoption of the contested decision.