CELEX: 62014TN0079
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-79/14: Action brought on 5 February 2014 — Secop v Commission

22.3.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 85/23
            
         Action brought on 5 February 2014 — Secop v Commission
   (Case T-79/14)
   2014/C 85/40
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Secop GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Schnelle and C. Aufdermauer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision Aiuto di Stato SA.37640, C(2013) 9119 final — Aiuti per il salvataggio a favore di ACC Compressors S.p.A., Italia (State aid SA.37640 C(2013) 9119 final; Rescue aid in favour of ACC Compressors S.p.A., Italy) of 18 December 2013 in accordance with Article 264(1) TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant alleges a failure to sufficiently state the reasons for the contested decision. It claims that, despite having knowledge of the circumstances of the case, obtained during concurrent merger control proceedings brought by the applicant concerning the purchase of assets belonging to a subsidiary of the State aid recipient, the Commission failed to take account of the consequences of situation for the eligibility for State aid of the State aid recipient and the particular consequences of the positive State aid decision for the applicant.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant alleges an infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the State aid recipient is not competitive and is a new undertaking which resulted from restructuring measures. As a result of the purchase of assets belonging to one of companies within its group of undertakings by the applicant, the State aid recipient was deprived of necessary assets for the continuation of its business, without which it could not either continue or recommence its business activities.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Next, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission should have taken account of the serious difficulties with regard to the compatibility of the State aid with the single market and initiated the main investigation procedure.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Finally, the applicant alleges in the context of the second plea in law infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims that the Commission made an error of assessment in so far as it failed to take account of the circumstances of the case essential to the review and assessment and thus made its decision on the basis insufficient facts.