Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/19

—

(Case C-442/21 P)

(2021/C 382/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Jørgen Jensen Distribution A/S, Dansk Distribution A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of 5 May 2021 of the General Court in Case T-561/18 to the extent that it dismissed the appellants’ pleas that the Commission encountered serious difficulties in concluding that the universal postal service obligation (USO) compensation constitutes compatible aid; that the Commission faced serious difficulties in finding that the State guarantee was existing aid; and that the Commission also faced serious difficulties with regard to its assessment of the misallocation of costs;

—order the Respondent to pay its own costs and the costs of the appellants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts by ruling that the Commission did not face serious difficulties with regard to the exclusion from the NAC of the intangible benefits (consisting of corporate reputation and ubiquity) that Post Danmark enjoyed as a consequence of the USO.

Second, the General Court erred in law by ruling that the Commission did not face serious difficulties when it found the aid to be compatible on the basis of the SGEI Framework for discharging the obligation to provide the USO, but then authorized the aid for the costs of dismissing employees within the context of the transformation/restructuring of Post Danmark.

Third, in violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the Commission did not experience serious difficulties when it concluded that Post Danmark’s over-allocation of common costs to the USO account did not constitute State aid.

The Appellants argue that the General Court’s erroneous conclusion is based on two errors in law, corresponding to two subpleas:

a.The General Court erred in law by holding that section 4(4)(c) of the 2006 accounting regulation and section 4(3)(c) of the 2011 accounting regulation are only a specific application of the principles laid down in section 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(b) of the 2006 and 2011 accounting regulations.

b.The General Court erred in law by holding that the appropriateness of Post Danmark’s allocation of common cost is evidenced by the fact that Post Danmark’s accounts have been subject to regular audits.

—