# C_2016305EN.01001902.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/19

---

Appeal brought on 6 July 2016 by Aughinish Alumina Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-373/16 P)

(2016/C 305/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (‘AAL’) (represented by: C. Little, C. Waterson, solicitors)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | quash the judgment of the General Court dated 22 April 2016 in Case T-69/06 RENV II. |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the judgment of the General Court dated 22 April 2016 in Case T-69/06 RENV II.

| — | order the Commission to pay all of the costs incurred by AAL in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all of the costs incurred by AAL in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

AAL submits two grounds of appeal against the Judgment.

First plea: Error in law in assessment of exceptional circumstances; infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations; failure to state reasons.

First plea: Error in law in assessment of exceptional circumstances; infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations; failure to state reasons.

AAL submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of AAL's legitimate expectations, in particular, in assessing the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’. This plea is split into four parts:

First part: The General Court erred considering the scope and effect of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-272/12 P.

Second part: The General Court erred in finding that AAL's situation should be distinguished from that in Case 223/85 RSV.

Third part: The General Court erred in interpreting the Demesa case law (Case C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P) as bringing an end to AAL's legitimate expectations of non-recovery.

Fourth part: The General Court erred in failing to conduct the requisite balancing exercise between public and private interests. In doing so the General Court infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and compounded its error by a failure to state reasons.

Second plea: Error in law regarding the interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999
   (1).

Second plea: Error in law regarding the interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999

1

AAL submits that the General Court erred in law in stating and applying the conditions under which aid will be classified as existing aid. In particular, AAL submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

1

OJ L 83, p. 1

---