Case C-891/24 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2024 by Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL and West Leasing SRL against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 October 2024 in Joined Cases T-624/15 RENV,T-694/15 RENV and T-704/15 RENV, European Food and Others v Commission
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, accession to the European Union, arbitration clause, bilateral agreement, control of State aid, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, tax incentive








C_202501412EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1412


10.3.2025






Appeal brought on 19 December 2024 by Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL and West Leasing SRL against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 October 2024 in Joined Cases T-624/15 RENV, T-694/15 RENV and T-704/15 RENV, European Food and Others v Commission


(Case C-891/24 P)

(C/2025/1412)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL and West Leasing SRL (represented by: A. Álvarez Vidal, J. Derenne, C. Jadot and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Latvia, Hungary and Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


Make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union to give final judgment in the matter and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania – Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013
                   (1);










—


Order the Commission to bear its own costs at first instance and on appeal and to pay the costs incurred by the appellants both at first instance and on appeal;










—


Order the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Latvia, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal;










—


In the alternative, refer Cases T-624/15 RENV, T-694/15 RENV and T-704/15 RENV back to the General Court for reconsideration.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on nine pleas in law:
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court wrongly applied the Achmea principles in relying on the Romatsa order and paragraph 145 of the judgment on appeal;
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court substituted its own assessment for that of the contested decision regarding the enforceability of the award issued by the arbitral tribunal in Case ARB/05/20 on 11 December 2013 as a matter of EU law, the identification of the State aid measure, the identification of economic and organisational links and of a single economic unit, and Romania’s imputability;
Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 107(1) with respect to the concept of economic advantage;
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 107(1) with respect to the notion of imputability;
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 107(1) TFEU by identifying Mr Viorel Micula and Mr Ioan Micula as part of a single economic unit.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated the principle that recovery should only be ordered from entities that actually benefitted from the aid.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated the principles for the compatibility assessment of the alleged aid.
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the General Court retroactively applied EU law, in violation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the right to a fair trial.
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 351 TFEU.


(1)  
            OJ 2015, L 232, p. 43.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1412/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)