# C_2021481EN.01003101.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/31

---

Action brought on 9 September 2021 — Zásilkovna v Commission

(Case T-585/21)

(2021/C 481/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zásilkovna s. r. o (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision in case SA.55208 (2020/C) — Czech Post USO compensation for the period 2018-2022, in the form of a letter dated (i) 9 July 2021 and (ii) 31 August 2021, partially dismissing the complaint of the applicant of 8 November 2019 as regards the cross-subsidisation by Česká pošta s.p. of its commercial activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision in case SA.55208 (2020/C) — Czech Post USO compensation for the period 2018-2022, in the form of a letter dated (i) 9 July 2021 and (ii) 31 August 2021, partially dismissing the complaint of the applicant of 8 November 2019 as regards the cross-subsidisation by Česká pošta s.p. of its commercial activities;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error in concluding that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | In particular, it is argued that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation constitutes a stand-alone incompatible State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, taking place already at least in the 2013–2017 period (but very likely even before), which the Commission should thus have thoroughly assessed in separate administrative proceedings, and not as an ancillary issue within the proceedings in case SA.55208 (2020/C), limited to the 2018–2022 period. This is supported by the Commission’s previous case law. However, the Commission wrongly concluded that this cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid at all. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error in concluding that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

In particular, it is argued that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation constitutes a stand-alone incompatible State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, taking place already at least in the 2013–2017 period (but very likely even before), which the Commission should thus have thoroughly assessed in separate administrative proceedings, and not as an ancillary issue within the proceedings in case SA.55208 (2020/C), limited to the 2018–2022 period. This is supported by the Commission’s previous case law. However, the Commission wrongly concluded that this cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid at all.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement, as its decision not to consider Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation as a stand-alone State aid is not duly reasoned.






  — | In particular, the Commission failed adequately to state the reasons in the contested decision. Therefore, the Commission infringed the applicant’s essential procedural right, since all EU institutions are obliged to state the reasons for the measure in question to ensure its reviewability before the courts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement, as its decision not to consider Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation as a stand-alone State aid is not duly reasoned.

—

In particular, the Commission failed adequately to state the reasons in the contested decision. Therefore, the Commission infringed the applicant’s essential procedural right, since all EU institutions are obliged to state the reasons for the measure in question to ensure its reviewability before the courts.

---