# C_2014024EN.01001001.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/10

---

Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Telefónica S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-430/11 Telefónica v Commission

(Case C-588/13 P)

2014/C 24/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Telefónica S.A. (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | declare the action for annulment in Case T-430/11 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the substance of the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action for annulment in Case T-430/11 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the substance of the dispute;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings relating to admissibility at both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings relating to admissibility at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court erred in law in interpreting the last phrase of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court errs in law in stating that decisions regarding State aid schemes, such as the contested decision, require implementing measures within the meaning of the new Treaty provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court erred in law in interpreting the last phrase of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court errs in law in stating that decisions regarding State aid schemes, such as the contested decision, require implementing measures within the meaning of the new Treaty provision.

| 2. | The General Court infringed European Union law in interpreting the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions brought against decisions declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible. In particular,






  — | the General Court wrongly interpreted the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ and distorted the facts in applying it to the transactions carried out by the applicant after 21 December 2007; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The General Court infringed European Union law in interpreting the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions brought against decisions declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible. In particular,

—

the General Court wrongly interpreted the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ and distorted the facts in applying it to the transactions carried out by the applicant after 21 December 2007;

| — | the General Court also erred in law as regards the transactions before 21 December 2007 in interpreting the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ as developed in the case-law. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court also erred in law as regards the transactions before 21 December 2007 in interpreting the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ as developed in the case-law.

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in adopting a decision that infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The contested order upholds a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the applicant from having proper access, and without needing to resort to infringing the law, to the preliminary reference procedure in order to call in question the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in adopting a decision that infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The contested order upholds a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the applicant from having proper access, and without needing to resort to infringing the law, to the preliminary reference procedure in order to call in question the contested decision.

---