(i)

In the grounds for its judgment the General Court did not address the main questions put to the parties by means of measures of organisation of procedure regarding the facts or the views of the parties in that regard.

(ii)

The above constitutes a serious procedural error, which falls within the scope of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the General Court was required to address all of the claims, complaints and arguments before it.

(i)

The General Court wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 1c of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) in that it assumed that new aid had been granted to Rousse Industry AD.

(ii)

The General Court delivered its judgment in infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since it wrongly assumed that the aid was incompatible with the internal market and infringed competition, and that the fact that the debt was not recovered by the State amounted to an advantage for the company in question.

(iii)

The General Court’s judgment does not comply with Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU, since, in its assessment of the Commission’s private creditor criteria, the General Court adopted an approach which was erroneous from a legal point of view. In its decision, the Commission failed to support its conclusions regarding the private creditor criteria with any analysis and economic grounds, which is why the General Court had no grounds for endorsing the Commission’s arguments.

(iv)

The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 and Article 296 TFEU since, in its decision, the European Commission was required to state the amount of aid to be recovered, plus interest, and to calculate the interest in that regard in accordance with an appropriate rate determined by the Commission, which it did not do. This means that grounds were not provided for the Commission’s decision.