17.2.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/39

—

(Case C-890/19 P)

(2020/C 54/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fortischem a.s. (represented by: C. Arhold, Rechtsanwalt, P. Hodál, M. Staroň, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, AlzChem AG, formerly AlzChem Trostberg GmbH, formerly AlzChem Hart GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside judgment under appeal;

—annul Articles 1 and 3 to 5 of the contested decision (1);

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law consisting of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1), Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 (2) by ruling that in a case like here, the recovery decision could be extended to the appellant even if the appellant had paid a market price for the assets of the beneficiary of the aid.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law by ruling that the Commission did not bear the burden of proof as to the question of whether the aid had been transferred to the appellant by selling the assets below market price.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law or distorted the facts by disregarding several (almost irrefutable) assumptions indicating that a market price was paid for the assets.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law in law by misinterpreting the concept of the criteria ‘scope of transaction’ and ‘economic logic of the transaction’ for the establishment of economic continuity.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law by accepting that the Commission could come to the conclusion that there was economic continuity on the basis of only two of the established criteria, all the other criteria militating against economic continuity.

Sixth ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law consisting of the misinterpretation and misapplication of the relevant provision of the Law which prohibited collective redundancies and an erroneous legal qualification of the facts by concluding that the prohibition of collective redundancies represented an advantage for NCHZ instead of an actual disadvantage in the form of increased costs and by the failure to reduce the alleged State aid amount by an amount corresponding to the increased costs.

Seventh ground of appeal: the General Court committed an error in law by substituting its own reasoning for that in the contested decision, as the Commission did not submit any arguments or explanations as to how the prohibition of collective redundancies represented an advantage for NCHZ.

—

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015, L 269, p. 71).

Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999, L 83, p. 1).