Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:852
Date: 2013-12-19
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Summary 90. Since, certainly to my mind, all the appellant’s grounds of appeal are unfounded, the appeal must be dismissed as requested by the Commission. V – Costs 91. Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs where the appeal is unfounded. In view of the Commission’s application as to costs, the appellant, as the unsuccessful party, is therefore to be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with Article 138(1), in conjunction with Article 184(1), of the Rules of Procedure. VI – Conclusion 92. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should: (1) dismiss the appeal; (2) order the appellant to pay the costs. 1 – Original language: German. 2 – Commission Decision of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C‑45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48). 3 – See Joined Cases C‑71/09 P, C‑73/09 P and C‑76/09 P Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission [2011] ECR I‑4727, paragraph 118 and the case-law cited. 4 – See my Opinion in Case C‑583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR, point 30 et seq. 5 – This footnote is not relevant to the English version of this Opinion. 6 – See my Opinion in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, cited in footnote 4, points 50 to 52. 7 – See Case 6/68 Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt v Council [1968] ECR 409, 415; Case 101/76 Koninklijke Scholten Honig v Council andCommission [1977] ECR 797, paragraphs 20 to 22; Joined Cases 789/79 and 790/79 Calpak and Società Emiliana Lavorazione Frutta v Commission [1980] ECR 1949, paragraph 9; the order in Case C‑352/99 P Eridania and Others v Council [2001] ECR I‑5037, paragraph 42; and the order in Case C‑503/07 P Saint-GobainGlass Deutschland v Commission [2008] ECR I‑2217, paragraph 71. See, similarly, also Case C‑263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I‑3425, paragraph 43, and Case C‑221/09 AJD Tuna [2011] ECR I‑1655, paragraph 51. 8 – See Joined Cases 16/62 and 17/62 Confédération nationale des producteurs de fruits et légumes and Others v Council [1962] ECR 471, 478; the order in Case 117/86 UFADE v Council and Commission [1986] ECR 3255, paragraph 9; and the order in Case C‑168/93 Gibraltar and Gibraltar Development v Council [1993] ECR I‑4009, paragraph 11. See also AJD Tuna, cited in footnote 7, paragraphs 50 and 51. 9 – See Koninklijke Scholten Honig v Council and Commission, cited in footnote 7, paragraphs 8 to 11. 10 – Case 249/85 Albako Margarinefabrik [1987] ECR 2345, paragraph 17. 11 – See Case C‑156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I‑5567, paragraphs 12 and 13. 12 – See Case C‑80/06 Carp [2007] ECR I‑4473, paragraph 21, and Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 71; see also Case T‑262/10 Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission [2011] ECR II‑7697, paragraphs 23 and 24, and the order in Case T‑381/11 Eurofer v Commission [2012] ECR, paragraph 43. 13 – See Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Kwekerij van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 219, paragraph 15; Joined Cases C‑15/98 and C‑105/99 Italyand Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I‑8855, paragraph 33; Case C‑298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I‑4087, paragraph 37; and Case C‑519/07 P Commission v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina [2009] ECR I‑8495, paragraph 53. See, similarly, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 64. 14 – See, to this effect, Italy v Commission, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 39. 15 – The German and English versions of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU read: ‘… gegen Rechtsakte mit Verordnungscharakter, die … keine Durchführungsmaßnahmen nach sich ziehen …’ and ‘… against a regulatory act which … does not entail implementing measures’. 16 – The French version of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU reads: ‘… contre les actes réglementaires … qui ne comportent pas de mesures d’exécution’. 17 – Secretariat of the European Convention, Final Report of the discussion circle on the Court of Justice of 25 March 2003 (Document CONV 636/03, paragraph 21). 18 – See my Opinion in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, cited in footnote 4, points 39, 40 and 44. 19 – Secretariat of the European Convention, Final Report of the discussion circle on the Court of Justice, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 21. 20 – Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C‑50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I‑6677, point 43. 21 – See the order in Case T‑379/11 Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission [2012] ECR, paragraph 52, and Eurofer v Commission, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 60. 22 – See likewise Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 34, but restricted to implementing measures of the Member States. 23 – See point 21 above. 24 – See Case C‑331/09 Commission v Poland [2011] ECR I‑2933, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited. 25 – Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1). 26 – See points 25 and 27 above. 27 – See my Opinion in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, cited in footnote 4, points 68 and 69. 28 – See Joined Cases C‑463/10 P and C‑475/10 P Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission [2011] ECR I‑9639, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited. 29 – See, inter alia, Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95; Case C‑78/03 P Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum [2005] ECR I‑10737, paragraph 33; and Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission, cited in footnote 28, paragraph 71. 30 – See my Opinion in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, cited in footnote 4, points 89 and 90. 31 – Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 53; see also Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 34, and Italy v Commission, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 39. 32 – Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 56. 33 – See Case T‑207/10 Deutsche Telekom v Commission. 34 – See Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited. 35 – See the Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission, cited in footnote 3, points 71 to 78. 36 – See, in this regard, point 54 above. 37 – See point 106 et seq. of the Opinion, cited in footnote 4. 38 – See, in this regard, my Opinion in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, cited in footnote 4, point 115 et seq. 39 – See my Opinion in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, cited in footnote 4, points 118 and 119. 40 – See, in this regard, point 53 above. 41 – See Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 42, and the order of 5 March 2009 in Case C‑183/08 P Commission v Provincia di Imperia, paragraph 19. 42 – See, in contrast, Joined Cases T‑425/04, T‑444/04, T‑450/04 and T‑456/04 France and Others v Commission [2010] ECR II‑2099, paragraphs 122 and 123.