CELEX: 62014CN0563
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-563/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Dansk Automat Brancheforening against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-601/11 Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission

9.2.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 46/32
            
         Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Dansk Automat Brancheforening against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-601/11 Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission
   (Case C-563/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/38)
   Language of the case: Danish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, advokater)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Malta, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Set aside the General Court’s judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-601/11;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Hold that the action in Case T-601/11 is admissible;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Refer the case back to the General Court so that the applicant at first instance (now appellant) may have its pleas in law heard on their merits;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice — In the alternative in relation to form of order 4: order the interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The main ground of appeal is that the General Court was incorrect in dismissing the case brought by the appellant on the ground that the General Court misinterpreted and/or misapplied of the criteria laid down in Article 263(4) TFEU for standing to bring proceedings against a decision taken by the Commission pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
   In particular, the General court misapplied the expression ‘individual concern’ in Article 263(4) TFEU because it failed to interpret it in accordance with the Court of Justice’s case-law and therefore misapplied it. In that connection the General Court: (1) found, incorrectly, that the fact that the measure which has an adverse effect on the individual members of the applicant association also affects other does not preclude those members from being individually concerned; (2) found, incorrectly, that only the relevant members had claimed to be in competition with the recipients of the aid; and (3) thereby failed, incorrectly, to accord weight to the specific calculations which the appellants had submitted showing that the aid would inevitably have an adverse effect on their market position; and (4) in addition to the error referred to in (1), incorrectly failed to see that the measure having an adverse effect is not the same for all operators; (5) incorrectly assumed that the appellants must provide proof of loss of income which has already occurred in order to have standing to bring proceedings; (6) incorrectly dismissed claims of adverse effect on the basis of other, undocumented causes of the adverse effect; and (7) ruled out the possibility of easing the requirements for having standing on the ground that the Commission’s decision to allow the aid under Article 107(3)(c) had not been dealt with administratively on its merits.
   Furthermore, the General Court: (8) misapplied the expression ‘regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures’ in finding that the decision contested in those proceedings presupposes implementing measures; and (9) incorrectly ordered the applicants to pay the interveners’ costs.