12.10.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/8


Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonlinie and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV Stichting Woonlinie and Others v European Commission

(Case C-414/15 P)

(2015/C 337/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: P. Glazener, advocaat, and L. Hancher, professor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV, in accordance with the grounds raised in the present appeal;

refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling consistent with the legal findings of the Court of Justice;

order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

According to the first ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that the applicants’ objections were in fact directed against the Article 17 letter and that the General Court’s review could not be extended to those objections. By its assessment, the General Court disregards the fact that, as is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU, the justification for the legal consequences of the decision must stem from the fact that the previous situation had been incompatible with the Treaty. The General Court misinterprets the TF1 judgment by inferring from it that its review of the contested decision had to be limited to the question of whether the Commission had correctly assessed the compatibility of the existing system of aid as modified by the commitments undertaken by the Netherlands authorities.

According to the second ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that it could not assess the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission given that they were mere proposals and that it was the adoption by the Netherlands authorities which gave the appropriate measures binding force.