25.4.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/25

—

(Case C-127/16 P)

(2016/C 145/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v Commission;

—order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on several grounds in support of its appeal.

First, it submits, in distorting the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 decision relating to the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets, the General Court committed several errors of law and failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons.

Second, it submits, in holding that the requirements of openness and transparency applicable to the call for tenders required by Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 decision necessarily presupposed that the selected candidate must have participated in the tender procedure as a candidate and in an autonomous capacity from the outset, the General Court erred in law.

Third, it submits, in holding that the tender of the Sernam management team was much more unfavourable to the vendor than the preliminary tenders of the other candidates, the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law.

Fourth, it submits, in holding that the Commission had not confused the purpose and the price of the en bloc sale of Sernam’s assets, the General Court erred in law, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and ruled on the basis of contradictory reasoning.

Fifth, it submits, in holding that the entry in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam S.A. in the amount corresponding to the aid of EUR 41 million did not comply with Article 4 of the Sernam 2 decision, the General Court erred in law and distorted the operative part of the Sernam 2 decision.

Sixth, it submits, in holding that the private investor principle was not applicable to the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets, the General Court erred in law, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and distorted the operative part of the Sernam 2 decision.

—