Case C-747/18 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2018 by Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2018 in Case T-710/17, Lux-Rehab Non-Profit v Commission
Date: 2018-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, admissibility, control of State aid, discrimination based on disability, employment aid, integration of people with disabilities, legal expenses, worker with disabilities








C_2019112EN.01001501.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/15






Appeal brought on 30 November 2018 by Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2018 in Case T-710/17, Lux-Rehab Non-Profit v Commission
(Case C-747/18 P)
(2019/C 112/19)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the appeal admissible and well-founded and, consequently, annul the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2018 in Lux-Rehab Non-Profit v Commission (T-710/17, not published, EU:T:2018:630), as notified to the appellant on 2 October 2018;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the second and fourth pleas of inadmissibility;










—


order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, unless the case is referred back to the General Court, in which case the Court should reserve the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court.





Ground of appeal and main arguments

1. First ground of appeal
The appellant submits that it referred to the safeguarding of its procedural rights and it should therefore be regarded as an interested party if its action seeks the annulment of a decision not to raise objections, within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) and that the application refers implicitly and by allusion to the safeguarding of rights.
2. Second ground of appeal
Since the General Court interpreted an annex to the application and ruled on the merits of the case on the basis of that interpretation, it cannot assert that it is not for it to seek and identify in the annexes the pleas invoked by the appellant.
By requiring the appellant to adduce evidence of a ‘concrete and tangible effect’ of the distortion of competition on its situation and thus demonstrate that it is directly concerned by the contested measure, the Commission enters into the factual assessment of the situation. In doing so, it distorts the condition of direct concern.
3. Third ground of appeal
If the defendant argues, during the proceedings, that the contested decisions cannot be challenged because they cannot be regarded as final decisions on the ground that the examination is still ongoing, the judicial determination on that issue must be made before the other admissibility issues are dealt with.


(1)  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).