Case C-612/25 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2025 by Cellnex Telecom, SA and Retevisión I, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 July 2025 in Case T-715/21, Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
Date: 2025-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Castile-La Mancha, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, high-definition television, peripheral region, reimbursement of aid








C_202505680EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5680


3.11.2025






Appeal brought on 12 September 2025 by Cellnex Telecom, SA and Retevisión I, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 July 2025 in Case T-715/21, Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission


(Case C-612/25 P)

(C/2025/5680)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Cellnex Telecom, SA and Retevisión I, SA (represented by: A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission
SES Astra SA

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 in Case T-715/21 Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission; (1)











—


uphold the action for annulment and definitively annul the Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2034 of 10 June 2021 on the State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); (2)











—


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





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: Error of law alleging misinterpretation of Article 108(2) TFEU and failure to apply the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the obligation to state reasons for the selective nature of measures which are the subject of an opening decision – Distortion of the facts.






—


The judgment under appeal is erroneous in failing to rule on the manifest omission of the ‘primary line of reasoning’ in respect of selectivity in the 2010 Opening Decision. (3)











—


The judgment under appeal wrongly finds that the overall analysis of the 2010 Opening Decision was sufficiently clear and unequivocal to allow interested third parties to comment on the Commission’s preliminary findings on selectivity.










—


The judgment under appeal wrongly finds that Cellnex was able to present, in 2010, its point of view on the reasons why the Commission considered, in 2021, that terrestrial technology was in a factual and legal situation comparable to satellite technology in the light of the objective pursued by the measure at issue.










—


The judgment under appeal is wrong not to apply the EDP case-law (4) to the present case.










—


The judgment under appeal errs in stating that the applicants at first instance failed to indicate that the subsidiary reasoning on selectivity set out in the contested decision is based on facts which were not set out in the 2010 Opening Decision.










—


The judgment under appeal wrongly concludes that the annulment of the 2013 decision (5) (of which the 2010 Opening Decision was an integral part) did not require the adoption of a new opening decision.




Second ground of appeal: Error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the concept of selectivity, and infringement of the burden of proof – Substitution of grounds – Distortion of facts.






—


The judgment errs in validating the definition of the reference system used in the contested decision on the basis of errors of law and a manifest distortion of its content.










—


The judgment under appeal errs in upholding the finding in the contested decision that the fact that different technologies are subject to different legal frameworks was not relevant in determining whether they are in a comparable legal situation.










—


The judgment under appeal is incorrect in upholding the analysis of comparability of factual situations, contained in the contested decision.






(1)  Judgment of 2 July 2025, Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission (T-715/21, not published, EU:T:2025:657).

(2)  
            OJ 2021 L 417, p. 1.

(3)  State aid No C 23/2010 (ex NN 36/2010) – Spain – Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television (DTT), C(2010)6465 final, Brussels, 29.9.2010.

(4)  Judgment of 14 December 2023, EDP España and Naturgy Energy Group v Commission, C-693/21 P and C-698/21 P, EU:C:2023:989.

(5)  Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (notified under document C(2013) 3204), OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, pp. 52-87.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5680/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)