CELEX: 62014TN0238
Language: en
Date: 2014-04-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-238/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — EGBA and RGA v Commission

7.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 212/35
            
         Action brought on 11 April 2014 — EGBA and RGA v Commission
   (Case T-238/14)
   2014/C 212/45
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Brankin, Solicitor, T. De Meese, E. Wijckmans and M. Mudrony, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Order the annulment of the Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid No SA.30753 (C 34/10) (ex N 140/10) which France is planning to implement for horse racing companies (OJ L 14, 18/01/2014, p. 17); and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to bear the costs of the applicants in the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes essential procedural requirements contained in or arising from Article 108(2), the principle of good administration and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the principle of good administration since:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the measure is not necessary and therefore has no proper common interest objective;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the measure includes costs with no common interest justification;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the measure is not an appropriate instrument for achieving the common interest objective;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the measure distorts competition and has an adverse effect on trade; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission failed to take the overall context into account for the assessment of the measure.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging alleging that the Commission, at various points in the contested measure, failed to adequately state its reasons.