CELEX: 62018CN0271
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-271/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 April 2018 by the Slovak Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-216/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa v Commission

201807060201993652018/C 259/292712018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419202121Case C-271/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 April 2018 by the Slovak Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-216/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN2010120180419EN0029201212Appeal brought on 19 April 2018 by the Slovak Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-216/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa v Commission
   (Case C-271/18 P)2018/C 259/29Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
            —
         
         
            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 in Case T-261/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. v European Commission, whereby the General Court allowed the action brought by Dôvera;
         
      
            —
         
         
            dismiss the action brought by Dôvera as unfounded; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            order Dôvera and Union to pay the costs.
         
      However, if the Court of Justice should conclude that it does not have before it sufficient information to give final judgment in the dispute, the Slovak Republic submits, in the alternative, that the Court of Justice should:
   
            —
         
         
            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 in Case T-261/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. v European Commission, whereby the General Court allowed the action brought by Dôvera;
         
      
            —
         
         
            refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            reserve the decision on costs.
         
      
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   In support of its appeal, the Slovak Republic puts forward four grounds of appeal to justify setting aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court:
   
            1.
         
         
            By the first ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic complains that in the judgment under appeal the General Court exceeded its power of review in respect of decisions of the European Commission in the field of State aid. The relevant settled case-law of the Court of Justice is clear and, according to the Slovak Republic, it was not observed in the present case. The Slovak Republic submits that in the judgment under appeal the General Court did not respect the broad discretion of the European Commission in relation to complex economic assessments, and did not demonstrate the existence of a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission, but simply substituted its own assessment for that of the European Commission, a precisely contrary assessment, and in doing so it exceeded its power of review.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            By the second ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic complains that in the judgment under appeal the General Court in two respects distorted the evidence adduced before it, as it made materially incorrect findings of fact, the incorrectness being clear from the documents in the case-file. The distortion of evidence complained of relates both to the profit factor and to the competition factor in the Slovakian system of compulsory health insurance.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            By the third ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic complains that the General Court erred in law in its classification of the Slovakian system of compulsory health insurance, thereby infringing both Article 107(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty. The judgment under appeal is incompatible with the previous case-law of the Court of Justice on social insurance systems. Specifically, the General Court (i) decided in opposite fashion to the Court of Justice’s previous case-law in similar cases, (ii) decided in the same way as the Court of Justice’s previous case-law in different cases and (ii) did not respect the basic approach taken in the previous case-law of the Court of Justice, namely that the classification of a specific social security system is based on its dominant aspects.
         
      
            4.
         
         
            Finally, the Slovak Republic submits, by the fourth ground of appeal, that the reasoning of the judgment under appeal shows several defects which justify the setting aside of the judgment under appeal by the Court of Justice. Specifically, (i) the General Court wholly failed to explain certain of its findings and approaches (which, moreover, were decisive), (ii) the reasoning in the judgment under appeal is inconsistent in several respects and the General Court contradicts itself in the judgment under appeal and (iii) the General Court did not, in the reasoning in the judgment under appeal, take account of relevant arguments of the Commission and the Slovak Republic. The General Court thereby infringed the requirement to state reasons resulting from Article 36 in conjunction with Article 53(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.