CELEX: 62018CN0738
Language: en
Date: 2018-11-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-738/18 PP: Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by Duferco Long Products SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2018 in Case T-93/17 Duferco Long Products v Commission

28.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 35/15
            
         
      Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by Duferco Long Products SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2018 in Case T-93/17 Duferco Long Products v Commission
      (Case C-738/18 PP)
      (2019/C 35/19)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Duferco Long Products SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favart, Q. Declève, avocats)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Set aside the judgment under appeal (T-93/17, EU:T:2018:558);
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Annul Article 1(f), and Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      By its appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by refusing to examine two errors of calculation made by the Commission in the context of the assessment of the pari passu nature of the sixth measure referred to in the Commission Decision of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) and in the application of the private investor in a market economy test.
      In particular, the applicant submits that:
      
                  —
               
               
                  The General Court did not carry out an adequate judicial review of the manner in which the Commission applied the private investor in a market economy test
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  The General Court should have examined, as a matter of priority, the plea alleging errors made by the Commission in assessing the pari passu nature of that sixth measure rather than favouring analysis of the documents provided by Belgium.