CELEX: 62011TN0489
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-489/11: Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission

26.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/36
            
         Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission
   (Case T-489/11)
   2011/C 347/66
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Rousse Industry (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Re
   
   Application for annulment of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the 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 infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as according to that provision what the Commission regards as a failure by the State to take the steps necessary to recover the amounts owed to it is neither new State aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) nor an alteration to existing aid. The applicant also claims that there is no increase in the State’s overall financial burden; and even if that were the case, it would also not be a basis on which to regard the facts at issue as new aid.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the third ground referred to in Article 263(2) TFEU, insofar as the Commission, without adducing any proof and without providing reasons, incorrectly assumed that the fact that the State has not reclaimed the amounts owed constitutes an anti-competitive advantage for the company and is therefore incompatible with the internal market.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a procedural error because the Commission’s decision does not contain the reasons which led to the drafting of its conclusions.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, because the contested decision does not indicate either the level of the amount to be reclaimed from the applicant or the corresponding interest at a reasonable rate determined by the Commission.
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.