17.7.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/20

—

(Case C-224/23 P)

(2023/C 252/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL), Issam Abdelmouine (represented by: J. Branco, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission in its entirety;

—uphold the final conclusions presented by the applicants at first instance in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on several grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in fact and in law by rejecting, as inadmissible, the application for annulment in respect of Penya Barça Lyon, given, (i), that the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings takes precedence over that of the second applicant when several people bring one and the same action and, (ii), by refusing the offer of evidence by the applicants in order to demonstrate the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the applicants’ procedural rights by failing to rule on a plea presented relating to the discretionary nature of the Commission’s power concerning the complaints lodged before it.

Thirdly, the General Court erred in law by disregarding any direct proprietary and economic interest in the facts of the case of the applicants.

Fourthly, the appellants allege an infringement of Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in that the General Court disregarded the second applicant’s status as an interested party and by holding that the interests of that applicant would not be comparable to those of a shareholder.

Fifthly, the General Court erred in holding that the new evidence submitted by the applicants on the day of the hearing did not affect the General Court’s assessments of its jurisdiction, of the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ action.

Sixthly, the appellants claim a conflict of interest on the part of a judge forming part of the formation of the judgment of the General Court.

Council Regulation of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

—

* * *

(1) Language of the case: French.