CELEX: 62011CN0389
Language: en
Date: 2011-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-389/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2011 by Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis v Commission.

1.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 290/4
            
         Appeal brought on 22 July 2011 by Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis v Commission.
   (Case C-389/11 P)
   2011/C 290/06
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais (represented by: M. Cliquennois and F. Cavedon, avocats)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis, European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the forms of order sought at first instance by the Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, the Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais claims that the General Court erred in refusing to examine the grounds of complaint against Commission Decision C(2008) 1089 final of 2 April 2008, withdrawn and replaced by Commission Decision C(2010) 4112 final of 23 June 2010, both decisions relating to the same State aid, C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007). According to the appellant, the further decision was in fact a response to the written pleadings which the appellant had submitted in its initial action before the General Court, and the appellant was given no opportunity to be heard within a further prior administrative procedure.
   Second, the appellant claims an infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the right to be heard within the administrative procedure in that the Commission adopted a further decision while absolving itself of the obligation to comply with the essential procedural requirements of that adoption. The Commission altered its analysis on the nature of the State measure at issue and revised the method for the calculation of the reference rates applicable when the State aid in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA was granted.