# C_2015127EN.01001301.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/13

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2015 by Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 12 December 2014 in Case T-487/11 Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission

(Case C-93/15 P)

(2015/C 127/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, F. Pereira Coutinho, M. Esperança Pina, M. Ferreira Santos, R. Leandro Vasconcelos, advogados)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should admit the present action and, having declared it well founded, it should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment, substituting it for a judgment which annuls the Commission’s decision (1) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment, substituting it for a judgment which annuls the Commission’s decision (1) in its entirety;

1

| — | in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it declared the State aid involved in the guarantee to be unlawful and incompatible for the period between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it declared the State aid involved in the guarantee to be unlawful and incompatible for the period between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid under Articles 2 to 4 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid under Articles 2 to 4 thereof;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it ordered the recovery between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it ordered the recovery between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea: the General Court attempted to compensate for the lack of reasoning in the Commission’s decision by providing its own reasons, and it erred in law in its examination of the Commission’s reasons in finding that they were sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea: the General Court attempted to compensate for the lack of reasoning in the Commission’s decision by providing its own reasons, and it erred in law in its examination of the Commission’s reasons in finding that they were sufficient.

| 2. | Second plea: the General Court misinterpreted Article 107 TFEU and incorrectly applied the law to the facts in considering that BPP had been granted an advantage, turning the guarantee into aid incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: the General Court misinterpreted Article 107 TFEU and incorrectly applied the law to the facts in considering that BPP had been granted an advantage, turning the guarantee into aid incompatible with the internal market.

| 3. | Third plea: the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment or an error of law in failing to take into account the exception under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea: the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment or an error of law in failing to take into account the exception under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea: the General Court erred in law in upholding the recovery decision, in that it upheld the decision to order the recovery of (alleged) aid which was not incompatible with the internal market, given that BPP did not obtain any advantage, it did not find that the decision at issue ordered the recovery of aid on procedural grounds, and it erred in finding that the Commission had not departed from the principles laid down in its guidelines at the time the amount of the aid was calculated. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea: the General Court erred in law in upholding the recovery decision, in that it upheld the decision to order the recovery of (alleged) aid which was not incompatible with the internal market, given that BPP did not obtain any advantage, it did not find that the decision at issue ordered the recovery of aid on procedural grounds, and it erred in finding that the Commission had not departed from the principles laid down in its guidelines at the time the amount of the aid was calculated.

| 5. | Fifth plea: the General Court did not observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in upholding the decision at issue in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea: the General Court did not observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in upholding the decision at issue in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea: the General Court did not take into account the Commission’s infringement of BPP’s right to fair treatment, in so far as the present case was treated differently from similar situations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea: the General Court did not take into account the Commission’s infringement of BPP’s right to fair treatment, in so far as the present case was treated differently from similar situations.

---

(1)  Commission Decision No 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to Banco Privado Português, SA (OJ 2011, L 159, p. 95).

1

---