EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/29

Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-446/14 P)

2014/C 409/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, Prof. Dr. T. Lübbig and Dr. M. Klasse, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside in full the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12;

2. order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In addition, the form of order sought by the Federal Republic of Germany at first instance is maintained in its entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of this appeal is the judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the action of the Federal Republic of Germany against the decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/2010) (ex NN 23/2010) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Reference: C(2012) 2557 final).

In its appeal the Federal Republic of Germany complains of an incorrect definition of the evidential criteria which the General Court established for the determination of a ‘manifest error of assessment’ in the event that a Member State defines a service of general economic interest (SGEI) in a sector which is not harmonised under EU law. The (alleged) recipient of the aid in the underlying administrative procedure is the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate — an establishment which received State compensatory payments for the animal health task of providing animal carcase disposal capacities in the event of an epidemic. Crucial to the issue of the classification of those compensatory payments as aid in the judgment under appeal is essentially the fact that the General Court did not classify the animal health tasks, with which the Zweckverband is entrusted, as SGEI.

The Federal Republic of Germany puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.

The first ground alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU in so far as those provisions were misinterpreted in the judgment under appeal to the effect that the German authorities had made such serious errors in the classification of the reserve capacity to cope with epidemics as SGEI that those errors must, in the view of the General Court, be classified as ‘manifest’. The Federal Republic of Germany argues that the judgment under appeal encroaches upon the margin of discretion which is due to Member States when defining a SGEI. According to the Federal Republic of Germany, there is in any event no ‘manifest error of assessment’ in the case of the SGEI definition. The Federal Republic of Germany notes (i) that that criterion for assessment is indisputably not mentioned at all by the Commission in the underlying decision, (ii) that the Commission also stated in the proceedings before the General Court that it was not obliged to prove the presence of a ‘manifest error of assessment’, and (iii) that neither the Commission’s considerations in the decision nor the General Court’s findings in the judgment under appeal substantively support the alleged presence of a ‘manifest error of assessment’.

The second ground alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU owing to the erroneous finding of an economic advantage on the basis of an erroneous assessment of the ‘Altmark criteria’. (1) The Federal Republic of Germany argues, inter alia, that the General Court committed errors when assessing the third Altmark criterion (necessity of the compensatory payments). The General Court failed to recognise that the Commission erred in law in failing to assess whether the compensatory payments for the reserve capacity to cope with epidemics exceed the net additional costs of the provision of that reserve capacity. Instead, the Commission and, following it, the General Court rejected out of hand the necessity for such costs by referring to an alleged lack of need for a separate reserve capacity to cope with epidemics.

The third ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons in the judgment under appeal, particularly in that alleged errors made by the German authorities must be classified as particularly serious and ‘manifest’. It is also not explained why the view of the German authorities is indefensible from any conceivable point of view.

(1) Judgment in Altmark, C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415.