Case C‑114/17 P

Kingdom of Spain

v

European Commission

(Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 20 September 2018

1. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure — Scope — Plea based on a judgment of the Court confirming a legal situation known to the appellant at the time when an appeal is brought — Precluded

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 127(1))

2. Appeal — Grounds — Inadmissibility of the action before the General Court — Ground involving a question of public policy — Considered of Court's own motion

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1))

3. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged — Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings — Adaptation of initial forms of order sought and pleas in law

   (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 84 and 86)

4. Appeal — Grounds — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection

   (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

5. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

6. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the evidence duly produced — Inadmissible save when the clear sense of the evidence is distorted — Duty of the General Court to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence — Scope

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

7. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — First condition set out in the Altmark judgment — Clearly defined public service obligations — Scope

   (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

8. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — Precluded — Conditions set out in the Altmark judgment — Cumulative nature

   (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

1.  Under Article 127(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, no new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.

   In that regard, a judgment which merely confirms a legal position known to the appellant at the time when an appeal is brought cannot be considered as a matter allowing a new ground of appeal to be submitted.

   (see paras 38, 39)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 47-49)

3.  The forms of order sought by the parties may not, in principle, be altered. Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, on the modification of the application initiating proceedings, is a codification of pre-existing case-law on the admissible exceptions to the principle that the forms of order sought by the parties are unalterable. Article 86 provides that where a measure the annulment of which is sought is replaced or amended by another measure with the same subject-matter, the applicant may, before the oral part of the procedure is closed, or before the decision of the General Court to rule without an oral part of the procedure, modify the application to take account of that new factor. As an exception to the principle of unalterability of proceedings, Article 86 must, accordingly, be interpreted strictly.

   In that respect, while Article 84 of those Rules of Procedure allows the applicant only to introduce new pleas in law, by contrast Article 86 thereof allows that party to modify the subject matter of the application, that is to say, to reformulate the forms of order sought where, as in the present case, a measure the annulment of which is sought is replaced or amended by another measure with the same subject matter. The applicant is required, in a statement in modification of the application, to set out unambiguously and in a sufficiently clear and precise manner the subject matter of the proceedings and the form of order sought by the applicant, so that the General Court does not rule ultra petita. On that basis, a statement in modification must, in accordance with Article 86(4)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, contain, inter alia, the modified form of order sought.

   (see paras 52-54, 56, 59)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 62)

5.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 75, 103)

6.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 80)

7.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 86)

8.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 95)