CELEX: 62019TN0484
Language: en
Date: 2019-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-484/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pearson Loan Finance and Others v Commission

16.9.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 312/27
            
         
      Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pearson Loan Finance and Others v Commission
      (Case T-484/19)
      (2019/C 312/23)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Pearson Loan Finance Unlimited (London, United Kingdom), Pearson Overseas Holdings Ltd (London), and Pearson International Finance Ltd (London) (represented by: A. von Bonin and O. Brouwer, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         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 errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in the identification, in the contested decision, of the reference system.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the group financing exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the group financing exemption discriminates between economic operators.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the group financing exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.