Grandi Navi Veloci V Commission (Case T-506/14) (2014/C 282/74) Language of the Case: Italian

25.8.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/55

— 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 The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Sertrans Catalunya v Commission (Case T-504/14) (2014/C 282/73) Language of the case: Spanish

Parties Applicant: Sertrans Catalunya, SA (Barcelona, 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;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission (Case T-506/14) (2014/C 282/74) Language of the case: Italian

Parties Applicant: Grandi Navi Veloci SpA (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: S. Grassani, S. Ravenna and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 to the extent that the Commission found that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. C 282/56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.8.2014

Pleas in law and main arguments By the present action, the applicant contests European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 relating to the aid measures implemented by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia in favour of Saremar (Cases SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C)). By that decision the Commission found, inter alia, that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law: 1. By its first plea, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is flawed in relation to the finding that Saremer gained no economic advantage in respect of the funds paid by the Region of Sardinia for the supposed promotional activities. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it found that the price paid by the Region of Sardinia as consideration for the promotional activities entrusted to Saremar, amounting to EUR 3 000 000, reflected market value and held that no economic advantage accrued to the recipient. 2. By its second plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits, first, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the method employed by the expert commissioned by the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) was inadequate and, second, that the Commission acted improperly by failing to carry out investigations and acting in breach of the principle of sound administration. 3. By its third plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is contradictory and does not state adequate reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU in relation to the finding that the measure relating to the supposed promotional activities does not constitute State aid. 4. By its fourth plea, Grandi Navi Veloci alleges, first, infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the finding that the banking facilities and comfort letters do not constitute State aid and, second, the related breach of the obligation to state reasons for the decision for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU.