16.3.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/15

—

(Case C-32/15 P)

(2015/C 089/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—quash the Order of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in case T-40/14, in so far as it dismisses the Appellants' action as inadmissible;

—declare that the Appellants' action is admissible, or alternatively that it is admissible for the period starting on 10th January 2009;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants rely on four pleas in law. In the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed the application brought by the Appellants for, in essence the compensation tor the losses incurred by them that flow from the wrongful termination of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) in application of unlawful Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C-41/05 (1). The General Court found the Appellants' action time-barred and dismissed their application as inadmissible.

By their first plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (the Rules of Procedure) providing an extension on account of distance to time-limits does not apply to the Appellants' application although the reading of the Treaties, Statute of the Court of Justice (the Statute) and Rules of Procedure shows Article 102(2) applies to the limitation period laid down in the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute.

By their second plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law in the application of Article 268 and 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) when requiring the Appellants to invoke the recurrent nature of their damage in their initial request.

By their third plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why the case-law referred to by the applicants to support the recurrent nature of their damage is not comparable to their situation, although the applicants had provided an extensive demonstration.

By their fourth plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law when it rejected the Appellant's argumentation that their damage is continuous on the basis that the Commission's decision is still under review.

*

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ L 225, p. 53.

—