CELEX: C2005/106/80
Language: en
Date: 2005-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-94/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by Athinaiki Techniki SA against the Commission of the European Communities

30.4.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 106/40
            
         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by Athinaiki Techniki SA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-94/05)
   (2005/C 106/80)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by Athinaiki Techniki SA, Neo Iraklio, Athens (Greece), represented by Spyros A. Pappas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               1.
            
            
               annul the decision of the Directorate General for Competition to take no further action on the applicant's complaint relating to State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the Casino Mont Parnes public contract, which the applicant learnt of by letter dated 2 December 2004;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its application the applicant relies first on an alleged infringement by the Commission of the obligation to initiate the formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
   Second, the applicant complains that the Commission made several errors in the statement of reasons for the contested decision. In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission states no reasoning to demonstrate that there were no serious difficulties of assessment, still less to explain why it disregarded certain key documents. Moreover, the contested decision is based solely on the analysis of the Directorate General for the Internal Market, although this was confined to finding that it was not possible to apply the Community legislation in this case. Finally, the applicant considers that the statement of reasons for the decision, namely the decision not to regard the measures concerned as State aid, is also inadequate, and submits, on the same basis, that there was an infringement of Article 87(1) EC.