This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0590
Case C-590/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
Case C-590/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
Case C-590/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
OJ C 65, 23.2.2015, pp. 26–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 65/26 |
Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
(Case C-590/14 P)
(2015/C 065/36)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Appellant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, E. Salaka, K. Sinodinos, K. Tagaras and A. Ikonomou, dikigori)
Other party to the proceedings: Alouminion AE
Form of order sought
|
— |
uphold the appeal; |
|
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and those of the present appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal must be set aside for the following reasons:
|
1. |
Error of law in interpreting Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(c) and (b) of Regulation No 659/99, inasmuch as it was held that the extension of aid does not ipso facto constitute new aid, but that classification as such requires alteration of the aid’s substance. |
|
2. |
Error of law, manifest error of assessment and distortion of the facts as regards the ruling that application of the preferential tariff during the period at issue constitutes the extension of existing aid. |
|
3. |
Manifest error of law and fact and manifest error of assessment as regards the ruling that the legal and contractual basis for the aid remained unchanged. |
|
4. |
Infringement of the duty to state reasons as regards the failure of the judgment under appeal to explain whether the conditions for classification as new aid are cumulative and whether classification of aid as new requires the existence of legislative intervention. |
|
5. |
Infringement of the General Court’s obligation to rule on the relevant submissions put forward and of the duty to state reasons. |