Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Athletic Club v Commission

(Case T-679/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Athletic Club (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: E. Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and J. Luís Carrasco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs, in so far as it affects Athletic Club;

annul Articles 4 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs, in so far as they order the recovery of the aid allegedly granted to Athletic Club and the elimination of the corporate tax regime for non-profit entities under which Athletic Club has been taxed;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs. As regards the applicant, that aid consists in the tax advantage which it had allegedly obtained during the relevant period, because it was taxed as a non-profit association and therefore did not pay the standard corporate tax rate.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

By this plea in law, the applicant submits that in the geographic frame of reference (Vizcaya), the measure examined in the decision cannot be considered to be selective, since all the football clubs are non-profit entities subject to the same corporate tax regime and rate.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the difference in tax treatment between non-profit entities and limited liability companies is justified by the fundamental differences between those two types of entity.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the measure examined in the decision neither distorts competition nor affects trade between Member States.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU and Articles 1(b)(i), 17, 18 and 19 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 (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

By this plea in law, the applicant submits that if the measure examined in the decision is held to constitute state aid, it should, in any event, be given the treatment provided for existing aid.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision, since it did not assess essential elements of the definition of state aid, did not respond to reasoned arguments made by the parties and disregarded essential elements of the burden of proof.

____________