Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5072

26.8.2024

(Case C-343/24 P)

(C/2024/5072)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Scandlines Danmark ApS (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Scandlines Deutschland GmbH, European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA), Danish Ferry Association, Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) eV, Verband Deutscher Reeder eV, Aktionsbündnis gegen eine feste Fehmarnbeltquerung eV, Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart (FSS), Rederi AB Nordö-Link, Trelleborg Hamn AB, Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed the Appellant’s action for the annulment of the 20 March 2020 decision (1);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant brings two pleas in law against the Contested Judgment:

With the first plea, the Appellant argues that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in finding that the Commission correctly classified the State guarantees and the State loans for planning and construction of the Fixed Link as two individual aid measures instead of finding that each State guarantee and State loan constituted an individual aid.

With the second plea, the Appellant argues that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in finding that the Commission did not commit a manifest error when it found that the aid to Femern A/S is aid that is compatible with the internal market.

The Appellant divides the second plea into two subpleas:

With the first subplea, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts when it concluded that the project is of Common European Interest. The Appellant argues that this erroneous conclusion of the General Court is based on three different errors:

2.1.1.The General Court erred in law and distorted the facts when it concluded that the Commission did not rely on the Incentive Studies and that the IPCEI Communication does not require a quantification of the benefits of the project.

2.1.2.The General Court erred as the Incentive Studies are based on parameters which contradict those relied on in the funding gap.

2.1.3.The General Court erred when it considered that the co-financing requirement in paragraph 18 of the IPCEI Communication is satisfied.

With the second subplea, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts when it concluded that the measure was necessary. This subplea is further divided into two arguments:

2.2.1.The General Court distorted the facts and erred in law when it concluded that the aid had an incentive effect because the formal and substantive tests of the incentive effects requirement are distinct and unrelated and because there is no ‘inherent aid application’ in the establishment of Femern A/S.

2.2.2.The General Court erred in law and distorted the facts when it considered that there was no counterfactual scenario.

—

(1) Commission Decision C(2020) 1683 final of 20 March 2020 on the State aid SA.39078 – 2019/C (ex 2014/N) which Denmark implemented for Femern A/S (OJ 2020, L 339, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5072/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—