Case T-686/25: Action brought on 6 October 2025 – Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych v Commission
Date: 2025-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, indemnification, postal service, right to an effective remedy, universal service








C_202506190EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6190


24.11.2025






Action brought on 6 October 2025 – Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych v Commission


(Case T-686/25)

(C/2025/6190)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych (Kraków, Poland) (represented by: W. Knopkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul European Commission Decision (EU) C(2024) 7997 of 15 November 2024 (published on 4 August 2025) on State Aid SA.105121 (2024/NN) consisting of compensation from the Republic of Poland to Poczta Polska S.A. for the net cost of the obligation to provide a Universal Postal Service in 2021-2025;










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


The first plea alleges infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) inasmuch as no decision was adopted to initiate proceedings in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU, despite the fact that doubts were raised as to the compatibility of the notified measure with the internal market, that is to say, the assessment of the notified aid measure caused serious difficulty within the meaning of CJEU case-law, which consequently meant that the applicant, as an interested party, was deprived of the right, referred to in Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, to submit comments as to the proposed measure, and as a further consequence could result in an incorrect assessment as to the compatibility of that measure with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.










2.


The second plea in law alleges infringement of the right to effective protection of interested parties, that is to say, it alleges infringement of Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 7(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, inasmuch as:






—


that notification was excessively redacted, going beyond the necessary scope of the protection of trade secrets, which deprived the interested parties of access to information necessary for the purposes of effectively adopting a position and prevented the genuine exercise of the right to be heard;










—


the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure, which prevented the Commission from verifying in an appropriate procedure the purported confidentiality of the information provided.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.






(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 (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6190/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)