CELEX: 62020TN0034
Language: en
Date: 2020-01-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-34/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

9.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 77/58
            
         
      Action brought on 20 January 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission
      (Case T-34/20)
      (2020/C 77/79)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 September 2019 on the measure SA.34402 — 2015/C (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Germany for Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (Commission document C(2019) 6836 final);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in applying a test to determine whether the activities of Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (‘HIS’) are economic in nature that is incompatible with the case-law, since the Commission failed to have regard to the content of the ‘inseparability’ criterion and the autonomous significance of the ‘connection’ criterion.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in characterising HIS’ activities for German public universities as non-economic.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in failing to differentiate between HIS’ various fields of activity.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that a market existed in 1976.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in failing to state sufficient reasons for the applicability of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 to situations not involving liberalisation.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that the measures underwent significant change.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as an ‘aid scheme’, since there was in fact a series of individual aid awards approved annually.
               
            
                  8.
               
               
                  Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period of time as part of the right to ‘good administration’ under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               
            
         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).