EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62024CN0059

Case C-59/24 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2024 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 15 November 2023 in Case T-167/21, European Gaming and Betting Association v Commission

OJ C, C/2024/2924, 6.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2924/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2924/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2024/2924

6.5.2024

Appeal brought on 26 January 2024 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 15 November 2023 in Case T-167/21, European Gaming and Betting Association v Commission

(Case C-59/24 P)

(C/2024/2924)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.S. Schillemans, M.K. Bulterman and A. Hanje, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Gaming and Betting Association, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

refer the case back to the General Court for further consideration;

order European Gaming and Betting Association to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court infringed EU law, in particular Articles 1(h), 4(3) and (4) and 24 of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) and its duty to state reasons. Paragraphs 29 to 53 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by an error of law. In concluding that European Gaming and Betting Association’s procedural rights had been infringed, the General Court erred in giving a broader scope to the interest of European Gaming and Betting Association and/or to the alleged State aid measure challenged by European Gaming and Betting Association in the complaint.

1.

The General Court erred in law on the admissibility of the complaint on alleged indirect state aid to the charities.

2.

The General Court breached its duty to state reasons by failing (a) to explain why examination of indirect State aid to the charities would be relevant to the alleged State aid to the licence holders and (b) to address in a reasoned manner the Commission's defence, supported by the Netherlands, to European Gaming and Betting Association's complaint regarding that indirect State aid.

3.

The General Court misapplied the judgment of 2 September 2021, Commission v Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology, C-57/19 P, EU:C:2021:663 and Article 4(3) and (4) in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation 2015/1589.

4.

The General Court erred in law by (implicitly) finding European Gaming and Betting Association to be an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589 in respect of the alleged indirect State aid to the charities.

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2924/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top