Case C-461/25 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2025 by Telly s. r. o., and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2025 in Joined Cases T-362/21 and T-363/21, Telly and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů v Commission
Date: 2025-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, Internet, State aid, control of State aid, high-definition television, satellite communications, waveband








C_202600081EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/81


5.1.2026






Appeal brought on 11 July 2025 by Telly s. r. o., and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2025 in Joined Cases T-362/21 and T-363/21, Telly and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů v Commission


(Case C-461/25 P)

(C/2026/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Telly s. r. o., and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. (represented by: R. Kubáč, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the Contested Judgment in its entirety;










—


Declare that the Appellants' actions were admissible and well-founded;










—


Rule on the merits and annul the Defendant's Decision; and










—


Order the Defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Appellants.










—


In the alternative, annul the Contested Judgment in its entirety; Declare that the Appellants' actions were admissible; refer the Joined Cases T-362/21 and T-363/21 back to the General Court; and order the Defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Appellants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on two pleas in law.






1)


First plea in law, alleging that the General Court has made a manifest error of appraisal that the Appellants' actions were inadmissible based on first limb of Article 263(4) TFEU. In particular, the Appellants in their actions and subsequent submissions sufficiently (and in line with the relevant case law) raised the plea that their procedural rights were infringed by the Defendant's failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108 TFEU. Therefore, the Appellants have fulfilled the requirements on admissibility of the actions laid down in Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the Appellants did not seek to challenge the fact that the formal investigation procedure was not initiated, thereby infringing the Appellants' right of access to the General Court. In any event, the General Court resorted to excessive formalism and failed to assess the Appellants' submissions by their substance as requested by the case law of the CJEU. As a result, the General Court has incorrectly applied the EU rules and departed from the case law of the CJEU which constitutes an error in law.










2)


Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court has made a manifest error of appraisal that the Appellants' actions were inadmissible based on second limb of Article 263(4) TFEU. In particular, the Appellants demonstrated that they were directly and individually concerned by the Defendant's Decision within the meaning of second limb of Article 263(4) TFEU. The Appellants have mainly demonstrated that the measure in form of State aid was liable to have a substantial adverse effect on their position on the market as required by the case law of the CJEU. Therefore, the General Court incorrectly applied the respective EU rules and departed from the case law of the CJEU which constitutes an error in law. As a result, the General Court imposed on the Applicants disproportionate and vague requirements to demonstrate a substantial adverse effect, which are in practice impossible to satisfy. This manifestly excessive approach, in breach of the CJEU's judgment in Case C-99/21 P (1) and Article 47 of the EU Charter, effectively resulted in a denial of judicial review and an infringement of the Applicants' rights.






(1)  Judgement of the Court of 30 June 2022 (Case C-99/21 P, Danske Slagtermestre/Commission, EU:C:2022: 510).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/81/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)