# C_2018190EN.01001502.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/15

---

Appeal brought on 4 April 2018 by Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2018 in Case T-423/14, Larko v Commission

(Case C-244/18 PP)

(2018/C 190/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (represented by: I. Dryllerakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, E. Rantos and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Grant the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the appeal.

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for reassessment, reserving the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for reassessment, reserving the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following four grounds of appeal:

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in respect of the conclusion that Measure No 3 conferred an advantage on the appellant, misapplying the private investor principle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in respect of the conclusion that Measure No 3 conferred an advantage on the appellant, misapplying the private investor principle.

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in respect of the conclusion that Measure No 3 conferred an advantage on the appellant, misapplying the private investor principle.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296(2) TFEU in respect of the conclusion that Measures No 2 and 4 conferred an advantage on the appellant. With regard to Measure No 2 (2008 guarantee): misinterpretation of the temporal criterion in the concept of undertaking in difficulty. Misinterpretation of the criterion of remuneration of the guarantee. With regard to Measure No 4 (2010 guarantee): (a) failure to state reasons regarding the granting of the guarantee as a current practice; (b) failure to state reasons regarding the irreparable harm that the appellant claims to have suffered; (c) failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations as regards the conditions of the guarantee and the amount of the commission; (d) failure to state reasons regarding the particular position of the National Bank of Greece SA (ETE) as private shareholder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296(2) TFEU in respect of the conclusion that Measures No 2 and 4 conferred an advantage on the appellant. With regard to Measure No 2 (2008 guarantee): misinterpretation of the temporal criterion in the concept of undertaking in difficulty. Misinterpretation of the criterion of remuneration of the guarantee. With regard to Measure No 4 (2010 guarantee): (a) failure to state reasons regarding the granting of the guarantee as a current practice; (b) failure to state reasons regarding the irreparable harm that the appellant claims to have suffered; (c) failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations as regards the conditions of the guarantee and the amount of the commission; (d) failure to state reasons regarding the particular position of the National Bank of Greece SA (ETE) as private shareholder.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296(2) TFEU in respect of the conclusion that Measures No 2 and 4 conferred an advantage on the appellant.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(b) and Article 296(2) TFUE in respect of the conclusion that Measure No 6 was incompatible with the common market. (a) As regards the application of the 2011 Temporary Framework; (b) as regards the application of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(b) and Article 296(2) TFUE in respect of the conclusion that Measure No 6 was incompatible with the common market. (a) As regards the application of the 2011 Temporary Framework; (b) as regards the application of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.

Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(b) and Article 296(2) TFUE in respect of the conclusion that Measure No 6 was incompatible with the common market.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1)
  and Article 296(2) TFEU regarding the quantification of the aid amount to be recovered by Measures 2, 4 and 6. As regards the points accepted in the judgment under appeal concerning the specificities of the State aid in the form of guarantees. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1)
  and Article 296(2) TFEU regarding the quantification of the aid amount to be recovered by Measures 2, 4 and 6. As regards the points accepted in the judgment under appeal concerning the specificities of the State aid in the form of guarantees.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999

1

and Article 296(2) TFEU regarding the quantification of the aid amount to be recovered by Measures 2, 4 and 6

---

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

1

---