# C_2014015EN.01001201.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/12

---

Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 in Case T-429/11 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

(Case C-587/13 P)

2014/C 15/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 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 admissible the action for annulment in Case T-429/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the merits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the action for annulment in Case T-429/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the merits; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from the proceedings relating to admissibility before both courts. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from the proceedings relating to admissibility before both courts.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court infringed European Union law in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions contesting decisions declaring an aid scheme to be unlawful and incompatible. In particular,






  — | the General Court erred in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary and distorted the facts in applying that concept to the operations carried out by the appellant after 21 December 2007; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The General Court infringed European Union law in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions contesting decisions declaring an aid scheme to be unlawful and incompatible. In particular,

—

the General Court erred in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary and distorted the facts in applying that concept to the operations carried out by the appellant after 21 December 2007;

| — | the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of the case-law, in relation to the operations prior to 21 December 2007. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of the case-law, in relation to the operations prior to 21 December 2007.

| 2. | The General Court made an error of law in interpreting the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court erred in law in holding that the decisions concerning State aid schemes such as the contested decision require implementing measures within the meaning of the new provision of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court made an error of law in interpreting the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court erred in law in holding that the decisions concerning State aid schemes such as the contested decision require implementing measures within the meaning of the new provision of the Treaty.

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in making a ruling which infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The order under appeal adopts a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the appellant from gaining access, in normal conditions and without having to break the law, to the preliminary ruling procedure in order to challenge the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in making a ruling which infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The order under appeal adopts a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the appellant from gaining access, in normal conditions and without having to break the law, to the preliminary ruling procedure in order to challenge the contested decision.

---