Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/24

—

(Case C-741/21 P)

(2022/C 64/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Coopérative des artisans pêcheurs associés (CAPA), Jean Derosière, Fabien Hagneré and Others (represented by: M. Le Berre, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comité régional des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins Hauts-de-France, Fonds régional d’organisation du marché du poisson (From Nord), Organisation de producteurs CME Manche-Mer du Nord (OP CME Manche-Mer du Nord), French Republic, Ailes Marines SAS, Éoliennes Offshore des Hautes Falaises, Éoliennes Offshore du Calvados, Parc du Banc de Guérande, Éoliennes en Mer Dieppe Le Tréport, Éoliennes en Mer Îles d’Yeu et de Noirmoutier, Herviou & Associés SARL

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded;

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2021 in Case T-777/19, CAPA and Others v European Commission;

—declare that the application lodged before the General Court is admissible;

—refer the case back to the General Court;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on six grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges failure to carry out an effective judicial review. According to the appellants, the General Court failed to exercise fully its judicial powers when it did not examine whether the aid at issue would be likely to have a specific effect on the appellants.

The second ground of appeal alleges inaccurate findings and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence. According to the appellants, the General Court made inaccurate findings in respect of some of the evidence submitted by the appellants and it distorted the clear sense of some other items of evidence also submitted by the appellants, regarding, inter alia, the effect of the aid at issue on the appellants’ activities.

The third ground of appeal alleges errors in the characterisation of the facts. According to the appellants, the judgment under appeal contains errors in the characterisation of the facts, establishing a distinction between some effects of the aid at issue and finding that some of those effects were separable from the aid at issue.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges incorrect application of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1) According to the appellants, the judgment under appeal applies incorrectly the concept of ‘interested party’ for the purposes of those provisions, both as regards the existence of a competitive relationship between the appellants and the beneficiaries of the aid at issue and as regards whether the aid at issue would be likely to have a specific effect on the appellants.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges incorrect application of Article 39 TFEU. According to the appellants, the judgment under appeal applies Article 39 TFEU incorrectly to the question whether the appellants have the status of interested party.

Last, the sixth ground of appeal alleges failure to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the obligation to state reasons, inter alia, by not substantiating the appellants’ exclusion from the status of interested party, by its finding that there is no connection between the aid at issue and the likelihood of the effect on the beneficiary wind energy projects and by the fact that the ‘particular nature’ of fishing activities within the meaning of Article 39 TFEU was not taken into account in the examination of whether the appellants have the status of ‘interested party’.

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

—