This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0081
Case C-81/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission
Case C-81/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission
Case C-81/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission
IO C 118, 4.4.2016, p. 21–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.4.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 118/21 |
Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission
(Case C-81/16 P)
(2016/C 118/22)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission; |
|
— |
Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10) (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Error of law relating to the control of Member States regarding the definition and application of a service of general economic interest. As regards the first condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark, (2) the General Court refused to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant factors in assessing the definition of a public service. Likewise, the General Court failed to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant elements in order to assess whether the fourth condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark had been fulfilled. Accordingly, the General Court infringed the discretion allowing a Member State to organise its public service.
Error of law relating to judicial control of the compatibility of State aid. In the first place, the General Court failed to check the accuracy of the facts on which the Commission based its analysis. Accordingly, the judgment fails to review the reliability, consistency and relevance of the data used by the Commission. Finally, the General Court failed to check the validity of the Commission’s conclusions.
(2) EU:C:2003:415.