Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/31

—

(Case C-271/13 P)

2013/C 207/52

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Rousse Industry AD (represented by: Al. Angelov and Sv. Panov, Advokati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 in Case T-489/11;

—deliver final judgment and annul Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission of 13 July 2011 on the State aid (C 12/10) (ex N 389/09) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry;

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to be reheard;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

1.First ground of appeal: Infringement of procedural provisions which adversely affects the appellant’s interests

(i) In the grounds for its judgment the General Court did not address the main questions put to the parties by means of measures of organisation of procedure regarding the facts or the views of the parties in that regard.

(ii) The above constitutes a serious procedural error, which falls within the scope of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the General Court was required to address all of the claims, complaints and arguments before it.

2.Second ground of appeal: Infringement of European Union law by the General Court

(i) The General Court wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 1c of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, in that it assumed that new aid had been granted to Rousse Industry AD.

(ii) The General Court delivered its judgment in infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since it wrongly assumed that the aid was incompatible with the internal market and infringed competition, and that the fact that the debt was not recovered by the State amounted to an advantage for the company in question.

(iii) The General Court’s judgment does not comply with Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU, since, in its assessment of the Commission’s private creditor criteria, the General Court adopted an approach which was erroneous from a legal point of view. In its decision, the Commission failed to support its conclusions regarding the private creditor criteria with any analysis and economic grounds, which is why the General Court had no grounds for endorsing the Commission’s arguments.

(iv) The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 and Article 296 TFEU since, in its decision, the European Commission was required to state the amount of aid to be recovered, plus interest, and to calculate the interest in that regard in accordance with an appropriate rate determined by the Commission, which it did not do. This means that grounds were not provided for the Commission’s decision.

—

Language of the case: Bulgarian

(1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

—