Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:284
Date: 2018-04-26
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 — Cellnex Telecom and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission (Joined Cases C‑91/17 P and C‑92/17 P) (1) (Appeal — State Aid — Digital television — Aid for the extension of digital terrestrial television to the remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Grant in favour of operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid measures to be partially incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State Aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Margin of discretion of the Member States) 1. State aid — Definition — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — First condition set out in the Altmark judgment — Clearly defined public service obligations — No recipient undertaking actually entrusted with carrying out public service obligations — Inclusion in the concept — Weakening of the market — Fact not sufficient for a finding that a service of general economic interest exists — Member States’ discretion — Scope (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 41-44, 46) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 67-69) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the evidence duly produced — Inadmissible save when the clear sense of the evidence is distorted — Duty of the General Court to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence — Scope (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 76) 4. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117) (see para. 95) 5. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law made by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d)) (see para. 107) 6. State aid — Definition — Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries — State intervention mitigating the burdens normally included in the budget of an undertaking — Included (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see para. 111) 7. State aid — Definition — State intervention mitigating the burdens normally included in the budget of an undertaking — Charges arising from compliance with national legislation — Included (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see para. 112) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the appeals; 2. Orders Cellnex Telecom SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA to pay the costs. 2. Orders Cellnex Telecom SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.