CELEX: 62019CN0057
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-57/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-793/14: Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission

29.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/16
            
         
      Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-793/14: Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission
      (Case C-57/19 P)
      (2019/C 148/16)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková, Agents)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 November 2018, notified to the Commission the next day, in Case T-793/14, Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd v European Commission;
                  and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  dismiss the application to annul Commission Decision C(2014)5083 final (1) of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom;
               
            alternatively,
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 November 2018, notified to the Commission the next day, in Case T-793/14, Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd v European Commission;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second plea at first instance;
               
            and in any event, order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
      
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appeal is based on a single ground: the General Court misinterpreted Article 108, paragraph 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (2) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by finding that the notified aid measure gave rise to serious doubts as regards its compatibility with the internal market.
      Given that the General Court based itself on a series of indicia on serious difficulties, the single ground is divided in the following two prongs on the two series of indicia examined in the contested judgment:
      
                  —
               
               
                  First prong: The General Court erred in taking into account, as a main indicator of doubts, the length and circumstances of the pre-notification contacts and the complexity and novelty of the measure.
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Second prong: The General Court erred in faulting the Commission for lack of appropriate investigation on certain aspects of the UK capacity market.
               
            
         (1)  Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (OJ 2014, C 348, p. 5).
      
         (2)  OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9