62023CO0804_INF
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2025 –Nutmark and Piamark v Commission
(Joined Cases C‑804/23 P and C‑805/23 P)
(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – State aid – Madeira Free Zone (Portugal) – Granting of tax advantages to undertakings – Aid scheme implemented by the Portuguese Republic – Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final – Decision taken by the European Commission pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU – Implementation of existing aid in breach of a condition ensuring compatibility of the aid with the internal market)
1.
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)
(see paragraphs 15-16)
2.
Appeal – Grounds – Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary – Absence – Inadmissibility
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)
(see paragraphs 23-24, 26-27)
3.
Appeal –Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)
(see paragraphs 24, 26-27)
4.
Appeal – Grounds – Ground of appeal raised against a ground of the order which is not essential to its operative part – Ground of appeal ineffective
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)
(see paragraphs 33-34)
5.
Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)
(see paragraphs 35-40)
6.
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted – Plea alleging distortion of the facts – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paragraphs 45-47, 52-56)
Operative part
1.
The appeals are dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
2.
Nutmark Lda. (Zona Franca de Madeira) and Piamark Lda. (Zona Franca de Madeira) shall pay the costs.