CELEX: 62018TN0270
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-270/18: Action brought on 26 April 2018 — O'Flynn and others v Commission

201806220561970602018/C 240/582702018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426505121Case T-270/18: Action brought on 26 April 2018 — O'Flynn and others v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5010120180426EN0058501512Action brought on 26 April 2018 — O'Flynn and others v Commission
   (Case T-270/18)2018/C 240/58Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Michael O'Flynn (Cork, Ireland), Paddy McKillen (Dublin, Ireland) and David Daly (Malahide, Ireland) (represented by: M. Cush, SC, D. Hardiman, Barrister, P. O’Brien and D. O'Keeffe, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
            —
         
         
            annul European Commission decision C(2018) 464 final of 25 January 2018 (SA.43791(2017/NN)) (
                  1
               ) in so far as it raised no objection to alleged aid to and through the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) or alternatively did not consider such a measure to constitute aid,
         
      
            —
         
         
            award the applicants the costs including those incidental to the proceedings.
         
      
      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 defendant should have initiated a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The applicants allege, inter alia, that, by failing to initiate such a procedure, the defendants infringed the applicants’ procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU and also the principle of good administration by failing to comply with its obligations to undertake a diligent and impartial investigation of the alleged aid.
                  
               
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The applicants allege that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment in adopting the contested decision, including its finding that there was no allegation of misuse of aid by the applicants whereas such an allegation was expressly made in paragraph 5.25 of the complaint. The applicants also allege that the defendant’s assessment of NAMA’s activities was deficient in various ways.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging a failure by the defendant to give reasons.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     In this regard the applicants allege that the defendant failed to give reasons or failed to give adequate reasons for the contested decision by, inter alia, failing to explain adequately or at all or in any verifiable way the basis for its acceptance of NAMA’s methodology in determining the viability of development projects.
                  
               
      
            4.
         
         
            Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 106 TFEU.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     In addition to the alleged violation of the provisions of the TFEU on State aid, the applicants allege that Article 106 TFEU was breached, as stated in their complaint, on which point they received no reply from the defendant.
                  
               
      (
         1
      )	OJ 2018 C 60, p. 4.