CELEX: 62014TN0488
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-488/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Mdr Inversiones v Commission

25.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/50
            
         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Mdr Inversiones v Commission
   (Case T-488/14)
   2014/C 282/65
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mdr Inversiones, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Linares Gil, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular, that the Commission erred in characterising as State aid the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as a whole, as well as the individual measures; that it erred in its identification of the beneficiary of the measures; and that it acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.