CELEX: 62017TN0738
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-738/17: Action brought on 3 November 2017 — STIF-IDF v Commission

22.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 22/49
            
         Action brought on 3 November 2017 — STIF-IDF v Commission
   (Case T-738/17)
   (2018/C 022/65)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Syndicat Transport Île-de-France (STIF-IDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               partially annul the contested decision to the extent that, in Article 3, it classifies ‘the C2 contributions awarded by STIF under CT2’ as an ‘unlawfully implemented aid scheme’ but compatible with the internal market;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      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 an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU vitiating the contested decision in the present case, namely Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24). Such an infringement was committed by the Commission in so far as it classified the C2 contribution of CT2 as State aid, considering that the measure conferred an economic advantage on its beneficiaries.
               The applicant considers moreover that the Commission, in its analysis, commits several errors of law and assessment when it concluded that the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law was not fulfilled in the present case.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision, relating to the failure to comply with the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law and of the existence of an economic advantage.