CELEX: 62017TN0292
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-292/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission

17.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 231/41
            
         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission
   (Case T-292/17)
   (2017/C 231/51)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Région Île-de-France (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 (SA.26763 — (2014/C) –), concerning the aid scheme implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it classified that scheme as State aid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission refused to classify the support scheme for the region as existing aid.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision. This plea is divided into two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of selectivity.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of undue economic advantage.