CELEX: 62011TN0387
Language: en
Date: 2011-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-387/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission

24.9.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/32
            
         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission
   (Case T-387/11)
   2011/C 282/65
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. (Pétfürdő, Republic of Hungary) (represented by: Z. Tamás and M. Le Berre, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested Commission Decision of 27 October 2010 on State aid C 14/09 (ex NN 17/09) granted by Hungary to Péti Nitrogénművek Zrt. (notified under document C(2010) 7274); and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission's failure to apply the market transaction principle;
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(1) TFEU;
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU;
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union;
                        
                     
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;
                        
                     
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law (as alternative to the first and second pleas), alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(3)(b)TFEU.