CELEX: 62016CN0100
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-100/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission

17.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 175/8
            
         Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
   (Case C-100/16 P)
   (2016/C 175/08)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos, I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The judgment under appeal held that all the conditions of Article 107 (1) TFEU were satisfied with regard to two State aid measures; the first State aid measure concerns the sale of the Cassandra Mines to the Appellant at a price which is lower than their market value. The second measure concerns the waiver of tax, in relation to the land value of the mines.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The Appellant relies on three grounds of appeal, two in respect of the first State aid measure and one in respect of the second State aid measure. More specifically:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           
                              In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning and procedural irregularity in respect of the value of the mines.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           
                              In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning, in respect of the land value.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           
                              In relation to the second State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by error in law.