Language of document :

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the Comune di Milano against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13 Comune di Milano v European Commission

(Case C-160/19P)

Language of the case: Italian


Appellant: Comune di Milano (represented by: A. Mandarano, E. Barbagiovanni, S. Grassani, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13, Comune di Milano v Commission;

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10));

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-167/13 R.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the Comune di Milano against the aforementioned decision.

In support of its appeal, the Comune di Milano relies on four grounds of appeal, which all relate to infringement by the General Court of Article 107 TFEU and the absence, in the present case, of measures which may be classified as State aid.

By its first ground, the Comune di Milano, first, disputes that the alleged State aid measures made use of ‘state resources’ and, second, complains that the imputability ‘test’ developed by the General Court is incompatible with the principles established in Community case-law.

By its second ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano claims that the General Court infringed the principles concerning evidence of imputability, both from the perspective of unequal treatment as regards evidence and lack of evidence over an extended period of time.

By its third ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano alleges distortion of the facts and evidence by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence relied on by the Commission in support of its claim that the measures in question were imputable to the Comune di Milano.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano disputes, on various grounds, all the assessments made by the General Court relating to the application, by the Commission, of the private investor in a market economy test (known as the Market Economy Investor Principle ‘MEIP’) and the findings set out in the judgment in that regard.