CELEX: 62019TN0143
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-143/19: Action brought on 2 March 2019 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

29.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/61
            
         
      Action brought on 2 March 2019 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission
      (Case T-143/19)
      (2019/C 148/61)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Metaxas and A. Bartosch, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested acts of the Commission, i.e., Decision C(2018) 6777 final of 10 October 2018 to the extent that it rejects the complaints brought before the Commission in Case SA.41794 and specifically only the paragraphs 111-121 of that Decision as well as the Letter dated 8.2.2019 (B.2 VI/MJ/mkl D*2019/019026);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rights of the applicant, because of the omission to define the relevant reference system as the prerogative for assessing the material selectivity of the contested measure, the incorrect assessment of facts presented to the Commission during the administrative procedure as to the compatibility of RES producers and energy suppliers, the wrongful legal analysis of the criterion of comparability to be carried out when assessing the material selectivity of the contested measure, the insufficient reasoning underpinning the apparent lack of carrying out a diligent assessment, as well as the erroneous assessment of the subject due to incorrect application of the invoked jurisprudence.