Appeal brought on 19 December 2024 by Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL and West Leasing SRL against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 October 2024 in Joined Cases T-624/15 RENV, T-694/15 RENV and T-704/15 RENV, European Food and Others v Commission

(Case C-891/24 P)

(C/2025/1412)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL and West Leasing SRL (represented by: A. Álvarez Vidal, J. Derenne, C. Jadot and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Latvia, Hungary and Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on nine pleas in law:

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court wrongly applied the Achmea principles in relying on the Romatsa order and paragraph 145 of the judgment on appeal;

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court substituted its own assessment for that of the contested decision regarding the enforceability of the award issued by the arbitral tribunal in Case ARB/05/20 on 11 December 2013 as a matter of EU law, the identification of the State aid measure, the identification of economic and organisational links and of a single economic unit, and Romania’s imputability;

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 107(1) with respect to the concept of economic advantage;

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 107(1) with respect to the notion of imputability;

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 107(1) TFEU by identifying Mr Viorel Micula and Mr Ioan Micula as part of a single economic unit.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated the principle that recovery should only be ordered from entities that actually benefitted from the aid.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated the principles for the compatibility assessment of the alleged aid.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the General Court retroactively applied EU law, in violation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the right to a fair trial.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the General Court violated Article 351 TFEU.

(1)   OJ 2015, L 232, p. 43.