CELEX: 62014TN0500
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-500/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — Derivados del Flúor v Commission

25.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/53
            
         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Derivados del Flúor v Commission
   (Case T-500/14)
   2014/C 282/69
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Derivados del Flúor, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By the present action, the applicant contests Commission Decision C (2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (State Aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006))
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission and Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular: incorrect application in the present case of Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU; inexistence of a competitive tax advantage; incorrect identification of the beneficiary of the State aid; compatibility of the State aid with the interior market; misuse of powers by the Commission; and breach of the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations.