CELEX: 62019TN0231
Language: en
Date: 2019-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-231/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Klöckner Pentaplast v Commission

24.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/49
            
         
      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Klöckner Pentaplast v Commission
      (Case T-231/19)
      (2019/C 213/49)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Klöckner Pentaplast GmbH (Heiligenroth, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The application is based on the following grounds.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.