CELEX: 62017CN0544
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-544/17 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2017 by BPC Lux 2 Sàrl, and Others against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-812/14: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and Others v European Commission

27.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 402/15
            
         Appeal brought on 18 September 2017 by BPC Lux 2 Sàrl, and Others against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-812/14: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-544/17 P)
   (2017/C 402/17)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and Others (represented by: K. Bacon QC, B. Woogar, Barristers, J. Webber, M. Steenson, Solicitors)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Portuguese Republic
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order of the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               remit the case to the General Court for a further hearing on the merits; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   This is an appeal against the order of the General Court dated 19 July 2017 in Case T-812/14 BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission EU:T:2017:560 (‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellants’ action seeking annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5682 on State Aid SA.39250 Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo (‘the contested decision’).
   In the order under appeal, the General Court held of its own motion that the appellants do not have an interest in annulment, and as such that their application is inadmissible. The appellants now appeal to the Court of Justice, on the single ground that the General Court erred in law and/or manifestly distorted the evidence before it.
   Specifically, the General Court erred in finding that the annulment of the contested decision could not have any effect in the domestic proceedings because they concerned questions of national law while these proceedings concern issues of EU law. In fact, as set out further below, the appellants had provided evidence from their Portuguese lawyer, uncontradicted by the Commission or the Portuguese Republic, that the annulment of the contested decision would substantially increase the likelihood of success in their domestic judicial review application, entitling them either to annulment of the resolution of BES or to claim damages. In reaching the contrary conclusion, and thereby denying the Portuguese courts the opportunity to consider the point for themselves, the General Court impermissibly substituted its own assessment of the interpretation of national law for that of the Portuguese courts, and/or manifestly distorted the evidence before it.