CELEX: 62014TN0103
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-103/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission

14.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/53
            
         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-103/14)
   2014/C 112/69
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok, QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission decision C (2013) 6261 dated 16 October 2013 on State Aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) addressed to the Slovak Republic; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
            
         
      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 that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the rights of defence.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in recital 83 of the contested decision.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and law in concluding that it would have been more advantageous for the Slovak tax authorities to initiate a bankruptcy procedure (recitals 88-119 of the contested decision).
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the tax execution procedure would have led to a higher return than under the arrangement procedure.