# C_2015034EN.01001601.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/16 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Appeal brought on 26 November 2014 by Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S against the judgment delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission

(Case C-541/14 P)

(2015/C 034/18)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S (represented by: B. Jacobi and P. Vesterdorf, advokater)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Malta, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)

Form of order sought

| 1. | Set aside the General Court’s judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus concerning the measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10) relating to Denmark’s implementation of duties on online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act, under which the appellant has no interest in bringing proceedings. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2. | Order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the appellant, and order the intervener to bear its own costs for the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The appellant submits that the General Court was incorrect in holding that the appellant has no interest in bringing proceedings, since the appellant fulfils the criteria in Article 263 Treaty on Functioning of the European Union to bring proceedings against the EU Commission. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2. | The appellant further submits that, in its judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus, the General Court erred in law in a manner detrimental to the appellant’s interests by:
a)
stating in paragraph 43, with reference to a lack of evidence, that the appellant had not demonstrated which effect the State aid would have on the appellant’s financial situation; b)
concluding in paragraph 44 that the appellant accordingly had not demonstrated the State aid could cause significant harm to the appellant’s position on the relevant market and therefore could not be regarded as being individually concerned; c)
finding in paragraph 42 that the appellant was not individually concerned by the contested decision, even though the appellant’s casino is part of a closed circle of land-based casinos; d)
stating in paragraph 52 that the appellant’s action did not fulfil the conditions for admissibility set out in the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; and e)
stating in paragraph 53 that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings. | a) | stating in paragraph 43, with reference to a lack of evidence, that the appellant had not demonstrated which effect the State aid would have on the appellant’s financial situation; | b) | concluding in paragraph 44 that the appellant accordingly had not demonstrated the State aid could cause significant harm to the appellant’s position on the relevant market and therefore could not be regarded as being individually concerned; | c) | finding in paragraph 42 that the appellant was not individually concerned by the contested decision, even though the appellant’s casino is part of a closed circle of land-based casinos; | d) | stating in paragraph 52 that the appellant’s action did not fulfil the conditions for admissibility set out in the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; and | e) | stating in paragraph 53 that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| a) | stating in paragraph 43, with reference to a lack of evidence, that the appellant had not demonstrated which effect the State aid would have on the appellant’s financial situation; | | | | | | | | | | |
| b) | concluding in paragraph 44 that the appellant accordingly had not demonstrated the State aid could cause significant harm to the appellant’s position on the relevant market and therefore could not be regarded as being individually concerned; | | | | | | | | | | |
| c) | finding in paragraph 42 that the appellant was not individually concerned by the contested decision, even though the appellant’s casino is part of a closed circle of land-based casinos; | | | | | | | | | | |
| d) | stating in paragraph 52 that the appellant’s action did not fulfil the conditions for admissibility set out in the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; and | | | | | | | | | | |
| e) | stating in paragraph 53 that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings. | | | | | | | | | | |

| 3. | The appellant submits that the casino is individually concerned, since:
—
the appellant had made a complaint to the Commission concerning the State aid in question in the form of markedly lower taxes for online gaming, had participated actively in both the preliminary and formal investigation procedures, and the casino was significantly affected by the State aid measure; —
the appellant’s business consists of the small number of land-based casinos which are affected by the aid measure, and which legally and factually are distinct from all other businesses in Denmark; and —
the contested decision from the Commission, which approves the Danish State’s aid measure in the form of lower taxes for online gaming, is not a regulatory act covering implementation measures, in any event not in relation to the appellant. | — | the appellant had made a complaint to the Commission concerning the State aid in question in the form of markedly lower taxes for online gaming, had participated actively in both the preliminary and formal investigation procedures, and the casino was significantly affected by the State aid measure; | — | the appellant’s business consists of the small number of land-based casinos which are affected by the aid measure, and which legally and factually are distinct from all other businesses in Denmark; and | — | the contested decision from the Commission, which approves the Danish State’s aid measure in the form of lower taxes for online gaming, is not a regulatory act covering implementation measures, in any event not in relation to the appellant. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | the appellant had made a complaint to the Commission concerning the State aid in question in the form of markedly lower taxes for online gaming, had participated actively in both the preliminary and formal investigation procedures, and the casino was significantly affected by the State aid measure; | | | | | | |
| — | the appellant’s business consists of the small number of land-based casinos which are affected by the aid measure, and which legally and factually are distinct from all other businesses in Denmark; and | | | | | | |
| — | the contested decision from the Commission, which approves the Danish State’s aid measure in the form of lower taxes for online gaming, is not a regulatory act covering implementation measures, in any event not in relation to the appellant. | | | | | | |

---