Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:188
Date: 2015-03-25
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition;Public health
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. The application must, accordingly, specify the nature of the grounds on which it is based, with the result that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure (judgment of 12 January 1995 in Viho v Commission, T‑102/92, ECR, EU:T:1995:3, paragraph 68). Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in support of a plea in law (judgment of 14 May 1998 in Mo och Domsjö v Commission, T‑352/94, ECR, EU:T:1998:103, paragraph 333). 132 Furthermore, in order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, if an argument is to be admissible, for the basic legal and factual particulars relied upon to be stated, at least in summary form, but coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see, to that effect, order of 20 October 2000 in RJB Mining v Commission, T‑110/98 REC, EU:T:2000:239, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited, and judgment of 10 April 2003 in Travelex Global and Financial Services and Interpayment Services v Commission, T‑195/00, ECR, EU:T:2003:111, paragraph 26). 133 In the present case, the Kingdom of Belgium did not sufficiently explain in the application its complaint alleging absence of overcompensation. In addition, the arguments which it set out in the application in support of that complaint do not satisfy the requirements of clarity and precision laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The Kingdom of Belgium did not explain to what extent the allege absence of overcompensation would permit the conclusion that the measure at issue had not conferred a selective economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. 134 In the light of the foregoing, the third part of the plea must be declared inadmissible. 135 In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 136 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the Kingdom of Belgium has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. Kanninen Pelikánová Buttigieg Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 March 2015. [Signatures] Table of contents Legal context Regulation No 999/2001 TSE Guidelines Background to the dispute Procedure before the Commission Contested decision Procedure and forms of order sought Law Admissibility Substance Second part of the single plea: the financing of the compulsory BSE screening tests was not harmonised First part of the single plea: the measure at issue did not have the effect of mitigating a burden normally borne by the budget of an undertaking Fourth part of the single plea: the measure at issue was not selective Fifth part of the single plea: the systems for the financing of the compulsory BSE screening tests in force in the other Member States were irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the condition relating to selectivity Third part of the single plea: the measure at issue did not result in overcompensation Costs * Language of the case: Dutch.