Case C‑334/18 P(R)

Hércules Club de Fútbol SAD

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Order of the court hearing the application for interim measures — State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain football clubs — Guarantee given by a public body in connection with loans to three football clubs in the Autonomous Community of Valencia — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Recovery order — Suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Statement of reasons — Rights of defence)

Summary — Order of the court hearing the application for interim measures of 22 November 2018

1. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — No separate document — Inadmissibility

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(4))

2. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Admissibility

3. Appeal — Grounds — Failure to have regard to the rights of defence — Admissibility

4. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 119)

5. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings — Decision based on facts and documents on which the parties have not been able to formulate an opinion — Infringement

6. Appeal — Appeal upheld — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Absence — Case remitted to the General Court — Application to appeals directed against an order for interim measures

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 57, second para., and 61, first para.)

1.  Under Article 160(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, an application for an order for suspension of the execution of a Commission decision in State aid matters, without hearing both parties, must be made by a separate document. In consequence, such an application made in the appeal is inadmissible.

   (see paras 22, 23)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 27)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 29)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 38, 39)

5.  The principle that the parties should be heard forms part of the rights of defence. It applies to any procedure which may result in a decision by an EU institution perceptibly affecting a person’s interests. The EU Courts ensure that the principle that the parties should be heard is observed in proceedings before them and that they themselves observe that principle.

   Thus it would infringe a basic principle of law to base a judicial decision on facts and documents on which the parties themselves, or one of them, has not been able to formulate an opinion.

   (see paras 47, 48)

6.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 54)