Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-40/14: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

(Case C-32/15 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

quash the Order of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in case T-40/14, in so f

ination of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) in application of unlawful Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid

C 41/05 . The General Court found the Appellants' action time-barred and dismissed their application as ina

dmissible.By their first plea,

the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (the Rules of Procedure) providing an extension on account of distance to time-limits does not apply to the Appellants' application although the reading of the Treaties, Statute of the Court of Justice (the Statute) and Rules of Procedure shows Article 102(2) applies to the limitation period laid down in the first paragraph of Article 46 of the

Statute.By their second plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law in the application of Article 268 and 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) when requiring the Appellants to invoke the recurrent nature of their damage in their initial request. By their third plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why the case-law referred to by the applicants to support the recurrent nature of their damage is not comparab

le to their situation, although the applicants had provided an extensive demonstration.By their fourth plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law when it rejected the Appellant's argumentation that their damage is continuous on the basis that the Commissio

n

's decision is still under review.