CELEX: 62016TN0370
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-370/16: Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission

10.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 371/9
            
         Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission
   (Case T-370/16)
   (2016/C 371/11)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Anheuser-Busch Inbev (Brussels, Belgium) and Ampar (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Haelterman, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 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 and Article 107 TFUE.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits Adjustments system constitutes State aid.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in identifying the groups as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of 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.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.