CELEX: 62020CN0649
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-649/20 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2020 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV, Kingdom of Spain and Others v European Commission

29.3.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 110/13
            
         
      Appeal brought on 1 December 2020 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV, Kingdom of Spain and Others v European Commission
      
      (Case C-649/20 P)
      (2021/C 110/13)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and S. Jiménez García, acting as Agents)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020, Kingdom of Spain and Others v Commission, in Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV, EU:T:2020:434;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System; (1)
                  
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 256 TFEU, for failure to give a statement of reasons with regard to the analysis of selectivity under Article 107(1) TFEU and the principles of cost recovery.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  The General Court erred in law in the interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU, concerning the selectivity of the measure.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  The General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, in the context of the monitoring of State aid under Article 108 TFEU, by its method of analysis and by rendering meaningless the content of both principles.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  The General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the principles applicable to recovery.
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2014 L 144, p. 1