# C_2022191EN.01002201.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/22

---

Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 21 December 2021 in Case T-263/15 RENV, Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo v Commission

(Case C-163/22 P)

(2022/C 191/28)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Gruszecka-Spychała and P. K. Rosiak, radcy prawni)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-263/15 RENV, Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-263/15 RENV, Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo v Commission;

| — | give final judgment in the case, declaring the first, fourth and sixth pleas in law of the original action well founded in so far as the present appeal is concerned and annulling the contested decision in accordance with the original form of order sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the case, declaring the first, fourth and sixth pleas in law of the original action well founded in so far as the present appeal is concerned and annulling the contested decision in accordance with the original form of order sought;

| — | rule in the judgment referred to in the second indent above on the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

rule in the judgment referred to in the second indent above on the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law in interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU in the context of the analysis of the first part of the first plea in law of the original action in respect of the incorrect identification of the advantage and the incorrect determination, raised in the context of the fourth plea in law of the original action, of the amount of aid to be recovered.

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by failing to take into account, when examining the second complaint of the sixth plea in law of the original action concerning the unlawfulness of the withdrawal of Decision 2014/883/EU (1) and its replacement by the contested decision, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of effective legal protection, in that it adopted an unlawful interpretation that enables the Commission to freely withdraw its own legal measure which has already been contested before the General Court and to freely amend its content, without taking into account the interests and expectations of the party that has contested that measure.

Third ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law when considering the third complaint of the sixth plea in law of the original action concerning infringement of the applicants’ procedural rights, and of the principle of sound administration, the principle of sincere cooperation and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing to recognise the Commission’s obligation to amend the decision to initiate the procedure or to adopt a new decision in that regard, where the conditions presented in the judgment under appeal for correcting or extending the decision to initiate the procedure have been satisfied.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2014/883/EU of 11 February 2014 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (notified under document C(2014) 759) (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 51).

---