# C_2016371EN.01000201.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/2

---

Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland 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: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-369/16 P)

(2016/C 371/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, T. Joyce, agents, P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment

| — | annul the Decision (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision (1)

1

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Ireland relies on four pleas in this appeal:

| a) | The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

a)

The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision.

| b) | The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable. |
| --- | --- |

b)

The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable.

| c) | The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

c)

The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd.

corresponded with an aid scheme

2

| d) | The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

d)

The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid.

---

(1)  2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel in a production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C (2005) 4436)

1

OJ L 119, p. 12

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1989 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

2

OJ L 83, p. 1

---