Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/10

—

(Case C-426/15 P)

(2015/C 337/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal

—grant the application made at first instance

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: Error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 108(3) TFEU, first sentence (obligation to give prior notice) and, in particular, of the word ‘conceder’ (grant) which appears in [the Spanish version of] that provision in connection with the word ‘otorgar’ (grant) referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the General Court confirmed the Commission’s statement (article 2 of the Contested Decision) that the aid notified in the agreements is unlawful, that aid being ‘granted’ on 15 December 2006 in breach of the obligation of prior notification. Error of law in not applying the principle of EU Law in relation to state aid in accordance with which any assessment to determine the moment at which state aid can be considered ‘granted’ has to be undertaken in the light of the national legislation applicable to the case in point. Error of law in wrongly applying the concept of ‘unlawful aid’ laid down in Article 1(f) of Regulation No 659/1999. Breach of the principle of legality.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in confirming the existence of an ‘unlawful aid’ in the ‘land agreement’ on the basis of the stipulation of a time-limit of 12 months. Error of law in failing to apply the principle of EU law in relation to state aid in accordance with which any assessment to determine the moment at which state aid can be considered ‘granted’ has to be undertaken in the light of the national law applicable to the case in point.

Third ground of appeal: Error of law in that the General Court did not find that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, breached the principle of good administration. Error of law in not finding the infringement of the rights and procedural guarantees available to the Diputación as a party concerned in the proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU. Error of law in holding implicitly that the Commission’s letter of 15 April 2010 was a satisfactory response to the requirements flowing from the above-cited general principle. Distortion of the clear sense of the main evidence. Breach of the right to a fair hearing. Breach of the rights of defence.

Commission Decision C(2012) 4194 final of 27 June 2012, concerning state aid SA. 28356 (C 37/20090) (ex N 226/2009).

Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p.1).

—