Case C-362/25 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2025 by Rems Kargins against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2025 in Case T-350/23, Kargins v Commission
Date: 2025-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, State aid, control of State aid, damages, independence of the judiciary, legal basis, legality, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_202503878EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3878


21.7.2025






Appeal brought on 29 May 2025 by Rems Kargins against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2025 in Case T-350/23, Kargins v Commission


(Case C-362/25 P)

(C/2025/3878)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Rems Kargins (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare that the Commission is liable for the damage caused to the appellant as a result of its interference in national judicial proceedings;










—


order the Commission to compensate the appellant for such damage;










—


determine that the material damage is at least EUR 15 028 841,93 plus interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from 23 June 2016 until payment in full; and










—


order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance refer the case back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as to its assessment concerning the manner in which the Commission intervened in the present case, as well as by manifestly distorting facts and providing insufficient reasons in rejecting the appellant’s pleas and main arguments in the judgment under appeal. The main arguments consist in the General Court’s error as to the assessment of the condition required by Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) that the Commission intervenes ‘on its own initiative’, the erroneous reliance on national procedural rules even though the Commission’s conduct is governed by Union law, a purely formal and erroneous view of the concept of the independence of the judiciary, the erroneous failure to consider interferences with the proper judicial process on a national level as well as the absence of a proper process on the EU-level, the erroneous characterisation of the Commission’s amicus curiae submission as being objective and neutral in tone whereas in fact it was threatening in tone and did not deal with the consistent interpretation of Article 107(1) and Article 108 TFEU, and an erroneous assumption as to the absence of any reasonable limitations on the Commission’s power to intervene in private domestic proceedings at the request of one of the parties to those proceedings.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred by rejecting the appellant’s plea of illegality as to Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, including by substituting the reference to a concrete legal basis for Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 with a mere reference to the ‘usefulness’ of the Commission’s role, as well as by erring with respect to the compatibility of Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 with Article 267 TFEU.


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3878/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)