Action brought on 29 July 2011 - Ellinika Touristika Akinita v Commission

(Case T-419/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ellinika Touristika Akinita A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Fragkakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

allow the application in its entirety;

annul and set aside the contested decision of the Commission addressed to the Hellenic Republic;

order that any sum that may have been 'recovered' directly or indirectly from the applicant in implementation of the contested decision be refunded with interest;

order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011)3504 final of 24 May 2011 relating to State aid to certain Greek casinos, No C16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009), which was implemented by the Hellenic Republic .

The applicant puts forward the following grounds for annulment.

The first ground is derived from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU and insufficient reasoning in breach of Article 296 TFEU. In particular, the measure under consideration: (i) does not ensure an economic advantage for the casino of Parnitha and that of Corfu through the transfer of State resources, (ii) is not selective in nature and (iii) is not capable of affecting trade between Member States and does not distort or threaten to distort competition.

The second ground is derived from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 14(1)(a) 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). In particular: (i) the recovery of unlawful State aid can be sought only from the actual beneficiaries of the aid and (ii) there is no identity between the actual beneficiaries of the measure at issue (the casinos' customers) and the persons to which the order for recovery is addressed (the casinos of Corfu, Parnitha and Thessaloniki), which were not charged for admission tickets.

The third ground is derived from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 14(1)(b) of that regulation. Recovery of the aid at issue is contrary to: (i) the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and (ii) the principle of proportionality.

____________