Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2022:898
Date: 2022-11-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Ireland

Appeal brought on 17 September 2021 by Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 July 2021 in Case T-680/19, Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission (Case C-578/21 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, abogada, and M. Clayton, avocate) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: set aside the judgment under appeal; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the proceedings of appeal. Pleas in law and main arguments The appeal is based on two grounds. By their first ground, the appellants consider that the General Court misinterpreted Article 108 TFEU and Article 4 of Regulation 2015/1589 1 by holding that the assessment of the concerned aid measure did not require the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure given the absence of serious difficulties as regards its classification as state aid and its compatibility with the internal market. The first ground is divided into six branches. First branch: the General Court erred in law as regards the scope of the Commission’s duty to examine facts and points of law in case of unlawful aid. Second branch: The General Court erred in law in setting a differentiated treatment of the information submitted by Member States and by complainants. Third branch: The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the duration of the preliminary examination. Fourth branch: The General Court erred in law in setting the burden of proof to be met by the complainants. Fifth branch: The General Court erred in law in disregarding the relevance of the system in the United Kingdom for the case at hand. Sixth branch: The General Court drew an erroneous conclusion from the technical nature of the method for assessing the NAV of fossil fuel electricity generation facilities. By their second ground, the appellants consider that the General Court distorted the clear sense of evidence put forward by the applicants. ____________ 1 Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).