Order — ECLI:EU:C:2014:36
Date: 2014-01-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Vice-President
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Application for interim measures
Origin: France

Summary — Order of the Vice-president of the Court, 21 January 2014 1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) 3. Appeals — Pleas in law/Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection 4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — 40675 / Décision de la Commission ordonnant la récupération d’une aide d’État — Absence de mesures contraignantes d’exécution de ladite décision au niveau national — Lack of any urgency / No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 18) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 19) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 20) 4. As regards the French Republic’s argument that it would paradoxical for a Member State to be obliged to adopt binding measures for the recovery of aid in order to obtain an order suspending the operation of a decision requiring it to recover that same aid, it is sufficient to point out that the obligation upon a Member State, pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), to instigate procedures for the recovery of aid which it has granted on the ground that the aid is incompatible with the internal market, compels that Member State to adopt, against its own wishes, legally binding measures so as to comply with the obligations imposed on it by EU law. Moreover, as the President of the General Court correctly pointed out in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal, Article 278 TFEU lays down the principle that actions brought before the Court do not have suspensory effect, since the suspension of operation of an act which an applicant seeks to have annulled and which individuals may apply for under that same provision, is an exceptional measure. Therefore, it must be held that the President of the General Court did not err in law by finding that fulfilment of the condition relating to urgency was contingent on the adoption, by the competent national authorities, of binding measures designed to ensure the recovery of the aid in question. Having also concluded in this connection, in particular in paragraphs 33 and 37 of the order under appeal, without the French Republic alleging any distortion of the facts, that the French Republic had adopted no such measures, the President of the General Court was entitled to find, in paragraph 42 of the order under appeal, that that Member State had failed to establish that the condition relating to urgency had been met in this case. It follows that the fact that a Member State must adopt binding measures for the recovery of aid even when it has applied to the European Union judicature for the suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision requiring it to adopt those same measures, is the consequence of the procedural rules and the division of powers between the Commission and the national authorities established by EU law. (see paras 24-27)