Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/3

—

(Case C-620/13 P)

2014/C 61/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: British Telecommunications plc (represented by: J. Holmes, Barrister, H. Legge QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal as it relates to the first and second pleas of the appellant’s application before the General Court;

—uphold those pleas as well founded;

—set aside Commission Decision 2009/703/EC of 11 February 2009 (1); and

—grant the appellant its costs of the present appeal and of the application to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that in the judgment under appeal the General Court set out its own reasons, which are not contained in the Commission Decision, for disregarding certain special liabilities in its assessment of selectivity. The General Court thereby impermissibly sought to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Commission in assessing whether there was any selective advantage to the appellant.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in any event, the General Court’s own reasons contain errors of law because in disregarding the special liabilities: the legal standard the General Court applied was incorrect; and the reasons it relied upon were in each case either irrelevant from the legal perspective or distorted the clear sense of the evidence.

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in its review of the Commission’s reasons for disregarding the special liabilities by upholding those reasons as legally relevant and sufficient to sustain the Commission Decision. The General Court’s review is inadequate. In some instances, it is unclear whether or not the General Court accepts the Commission’s reasoning and, if so, on what basis. In other instances, the General Court takes into account factors that are legally irrelevant and substitutes its own reasoning for that of the Commission.

—

(1) Commission Decision of 11 February 2009 concerning the State aid C-55/07 (ex NN-63/07, CP-106/06) implemented by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Crown guarantee to BT (notified under document C(2009) 685).

OJ L 242, p. 21

—