Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016CN0100

    Case C-100/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission

    IO C 175, 17.5.2016, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    17.5.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 175/8

    Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission

    (Case C-100/16 P)

    (2016/C 175/08)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos, I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)

    Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling.

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the costs

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    1.

    The judgment under appeal held that all the conditions of Article 107 (1) TFEU were satisfied with regard to two State aid measures; the first State aid measure concerns the sale of the Cassandra Mines to the Appellant at a price which is lower than their market value. The second measure concerns the waiver of tax, in relation to the land value of the mines.

    2.

    The Appellant relies on three grounds of appeal, two in respect of the first State aid measure and one in respect of the second State aid measure. More specifically:

    —

    In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning and procedural irregularity in respect of the value of the mines.

    —

    In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning, in respect of the land value.

    —

    In relation to the second State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by error in law.
    Top