Case C-628/24 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2024 by Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2024 in Case T-582/23, Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais v Commission
Date: 2024-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, VAT, admissibility, control of State aid, harbour installation, port administration, property tax, tax exemption








C_202500526EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/526


3.2.2025






Appeal brought on 26 September 2024 by Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2024 in Case T-582/23, Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais v Commission


(Case C-628/24 P)

(C/2025/526)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais (represented by: P. Schiele, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


set aside the order of the General Court of 11 July 2024 in case T-582/23, in so far as the General Court finds the CAB’s action for annulment inadmissible and orders it to pay the costs;










—


order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds to set aside the order, alleging that:






—


the reasoning is flawed in that the order provided incomplete reasons as regards the framework for analysing the confirmatory acts and examined the arguments raised by the appellant in its pleadings only in part, and










—


the General Court erred in law in so far as the framework for analysing the confirmatory acts was incorrectly applied in the order and distorted the scope of a judgment of the Court.




It follows that the General Court should not have made the decision under appeal, which should be set aside.
Those two grounds of appeal are divided into two and four parts respectively.
As regards the ground of appeal alleging that the General Court’s reasoning is flawed, the reasoning in the order is, first, incomplete as regards the examination of the new information set out in the complaint and, second, the reasoning is insufficient as regards the examination of the new information set out in the decision of 18 July 2023.
As regards the second ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erred in law, the order contains an error of law in that it examines the complaint of 11 April 2023 on the basis of incorrect criteria (1.); the order contains an error of law in that it examines the decision of 18 July 2023 on the basis of insufficient criteria (2.); the order contains an error of law in that it draws incorrect conclusions from the setting aside by the Court of Justice of the judgment of the General Court in Braesch and Others v Commission, of 24 February 2021 (T-161/18, EU T:2021:102) (3.); and the order contains an error of law in that it finds that the decision of 18 July 2023 constitutes a purely confirmatory act of the decision of 17 July 2020 (4.).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/526/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)