CELEX: 62019CN0171
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-171/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Joined Cases T-722/15, T-723/15 and T-724/15, Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V. and Others v European Commission

8.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/36
            
         
      Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Joined Cases T-722/15, T-723/15 and T-724/15, Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V. and Others v European Commission
      (Case C-171/19 P)
      (2019/C 131/41)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V., Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e.V. and Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft e.V.
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The Commission claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare unfounded the first plea in law of the action before the General Court;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court in respect of the remaining pleas in law;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the applicants in the proceedings at first instance to pay the costs of those proceedings and of the appeal, or, alternatively, in the event that the case is referred back to the General Court, reserve the decision on the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal for the final judgment.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      
         First ground of appeal:
      
      In paragraphs 56 to 64 of the judgment under appeal, when defining the requirements for the content of an opening decision, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) and the case-law of the EU judicature relating to those provisions: the source of financing of aid is stated in the opening decision only exceptionally and in specific circumstances.
      
         Second ground of appeal:
      
      In paragraphs 47 to 53 and 56 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the opening decision and thereby failed to state reasons and respond to the Commission’s arguments; the opening decision in fact includes budgetary funding.
      
         Third ground of appeal:
      
      In paragraphs 66 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the case-law of the EU judicature relating to that provision, in so far as it holds that the rights of participation of third parties are essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
      
         Fourth ground of appeal:
      
      In paragraphs 70 to 72 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the right of participation under Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 together with the case-law of the EU judicature on the consequences of infringing a right of participation, in so far as it finds that an observation of the parties involved on the question whether budgetary funding constitutes State resources could have had an effect on the outcome of the proceedings. In that regard, the General Court also misinterprets the concept of State resources under Article 107(1) TFEU and distorts the facts set out in the decision at issue and adduced before it and fails to deal with the arguments put forward before it by the Commission.
      
         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.