# C_2020137EN.01005202.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/52

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

(Case T-94/20)

(2020/C 137/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Campine (Beerse, Belgium), Campine Recycling (Beerse) (represented by: C. Verdonck, B. Gielen and Q. Silvestre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation corresponding to the default interest to comply with the General Court Campine Judgment (1) over the period starting on the date of Campine’s provisional payment of the fine until 11 December 2019. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points — i.e. amounting to EUR 300 637,32, or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation corresponding to the default interest to comply with the General Court Campine Judgment (1) over the period starting on the date of Campine’s provisional payment of the fine until 11 December 2019. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points — i.e. amounting to EUR 300 637,32, or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate;

| — | order the Commission to pay default interest on the amount in (a), i.e., on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points (calculated on the compensation of EUR 300 637,32, that amounts to EUR 28,83 per day), or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate. This default interest should be calculated over the period starting on the date of the Commission’s reimbursement of the principal amount on 11 December 2019, or alternatively starting on the date of the delivery of the General Court’s judgment in this case, or, as a further alternative, over the period starting on the date that the Court deems appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay default interest on the amount in (a), i.e., on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points (calculated on the compensation of EUR 300 637,32, that amounts to EUR 28,83 per day), or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate. This default interest should be calculated over the period starting on the date of the Commission’s reimbursement of the principal amount on 11 December 2019, or alternatively starting on the date of the delivery of the General Court’s judgment in this case, or, as a further alternative, over the period starting on the date that the Court deems appropriate;

| — | in subsidiary order, annul the Commission letter of 13 January 2020, or alternatively the Commission e-mail of 10 December 2019, in which the Commission refused to pay default interest to the applicants following the General Court’s judgment in case T-240/17, and order the Commission to pay damages pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, or alternatively to adopt appropriate measures in order to ensure full compliance with the General Court’s judgment of 7 November 2019 in light of the requirements of Article 266 § 1 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary order, annul the Commission letter of 13 January 2020, or alternatively the Commission e-mail of 10 December 2019, in which the Commission refused to pay default interest to the applicants following the General Court’s judgment in case T-240/17, and order the Commission to pay damages pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, or alternatively to adopt appropriate measures in order to ensure full compliance with the General Court’s judgment of 7 November 2019 in light of the requirements of Article 266 § 1 TFEU;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission should pay compensation under Article 266 § 2 TFEU and Article 340 § 2 TFEU. The applicants submit that following the General Court Campine Judgment the Commission was required, under Article 266 § 1 TFEU as interpreted by the case-law, in terms of measures for complying with that judgment, not only to repay the principal amount of the fine but also to pay default interest as compensation at a standard rate for the loss of use of that amount during the reference period (i.e., the period between the provisional payment by the applicants and the repayment by the Commission), and the Commission enjoyed no discretion in that regard. Given the retroactive effect of an annulment judgement, the Commission should pay compensation corresponding to the default interest to comply with the General Court’s judgment in the Campine case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission should pay compensation under Article 266 § 2 TFEU and Article 340 § 2 TFEU. The applicants submit that following the General Court Campine Judgment the Commission was required, under Article 266 § 1 TFEU as interpreted by the case-law, in terms of measures for complying with that judgment, not only to repay the principal amount of the fine but also to pay default interest as compensation at a standard rate for the loss of use of that amount during the reference period (i.e., the period between the provisional payment by the applicants and the repayment by the Commission), and the Commission enjoyed no discretion in that regard. Given the retroactive effect of an annulment judgement, the Commission should pay compensation corresponding to the default interest to comply with the General Court’s judgment in the Campine case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission should pay default interests on the compensation to be paid. The applicants put forward that the principle of restitutio in integrum requires that the Commission pay default interest on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission should pay default interests on the compensation to be paid. The applicants put forward that the principle of restitutio in integrum requires that the Commission pay default interest on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission letter of 13 January 2020, or alternatively the Commission e-mail of 10 December 2019, in which the Commission refused to pay default interest, are unlawful and should therefore be annulled. The applicants submit that these acts are unlawful because of the infringement of Articles 266§ 1 and 296§ 1 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission letter of 13 January 2020, or alternatively the Commission e-mail of 10 December 2019, in which the Commission refused to pay default interest, are unlawful and should therefore be annulled. The applicants submit that these acts are unlawful because of the infringement of Articles 266§ 1 and 296§ 1 TFEU.

---

(1)  Judgment of 7 November 2019, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission, T-240/17 (ECLI:EU:T:2019:778).

---