# C_2017129EN.01001101.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/11

---

Appeal brought on 3 March 2017 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-808/14, Spain v Commission

(Case C-114/17 P)

(2017/C 129/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

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 judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 in Case T-808/14, Kingdom of Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 in Case T-808/14, Kingdom of Spain v Commission;

Kingdom of Spain

Commission

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 (C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009) granted by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 (C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009) granted by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Error of law in relation to the interpretation of Article 1 of the contested decision, before its amendment, and in relation to the principles of sound administration and legal certainty, in that the General Court considered that that article also referred to the provision of equipment and that it did not entail any new obligation for the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error of law in relation to the interpretation of Article 1 of the contested decision, before its amendment, and in relation to the principles of sound administration and legal certainty, in that the General Court considered that that article also referred to the provision of equipment and that it did not entail any new obligation for the Kingdom of Spain.

| 2. | Error of law in relation to the review of the Member States’ definition and application of a Service of General Economic Interest, with regard to both the first and the fourth criteria established in Altmark Trans and Regirungspräsidum Magdebrug (C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Error of law in relation to the review of the Member States’ definition and application of a Service of General Economic Interest, with regard to both the first and the fourth criteria established in Altmark Trans and Regirungspräsidum Magdebrug (C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415).

Altmark Trans and Regirungspräsidum Magdebrug

| 3. | Error of law in relation to the judicial review of the compatibility of the aid, in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the General Court concluded that the measure in question was incompatible with the internal market because of the failure to observe the principle of technological neutrality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Error of law in relation to the judicial review of the compatibility of the aid, in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the General Court concluded that the measure in question was incompatible with the internal market because of the failure to observe the principle of technological neutrality.

---