# C_2013164EN.01000801.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/8

---

Appeal brought on 1 March 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11 Germany v Commission

(Case C-102/13 P)

2013/C 164/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11;

| — | declare the action admissible and refer it back to the General Court for a decision on the merits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and refer it back to the General Court for a decision on the merits; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal has been brought against the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Federal Republic of Gemany for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany (Sanierungsklausel).

Sanierungsklausel

The Federal Government’s appeal is based on two grounds of appeal, each of which concerns a complaint as to insufficient reasoning:

| — | Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court erred in its classification of the Commission’s chosen notification procedure in respect of the decision at issue, and did not establish any requirements as to the formalities to be observed in order for notification, with a form for acknowledgement of receipt, of a decision under Article 7 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) to be effective. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court erred in its classification of the Commission’s chosen notification procedure in respect of the decision at issue, and did not establish any requirements as to the formalities to be observed in order for notification, with a form for acknowledgement of receipt, of a decision under Article 7 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) to be effective.

1

| — | Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court found that the Commission was not, in relation to the complaint of late submission of the application, required to adduce evidence of receipt of mail by an identifiable person or of the fact that the person concerned was authorised to accept notification. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court found that the Commission was not, in relation to the complaint of late submission of the application, required to adduce evidence of receipt of mail by an identifiable person or of the fact that the person concerned was authorised to accept notification.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

1

---