CELEX: 62012TN0319
Language: en
Date: 2012-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-319/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission

22.9.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 287/32
            
         Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-319/12)
   2012/C 287/60
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul European Commission Decision C(2012) of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008), granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               Incorrect application of the private investor test, since the Commission went beyond the bounds of its margin of assessment when carrying out its analysis.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Error in the assessment of the State aid on account of a failure to take into account actions in the tertiary part of the complex.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Failure of the contested decision to state reasons in so far as the Commission requires recovery of the aid granted to film producers and in so far as its analysis makes no mention of that alleged aid.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the alternative, error in the analysis of the compatibility of the investment with the Guidelines on National Regional aid, since the Commission failed to consider whether the remaining aid complied with the private investor principle.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               In the alternative, failure to state reasons and error in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid, in the light of the rules applicable to aid in the audiovisual sector, since the Commission failed to consider why the alleged aid was not intended for cultural purposes.