ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
19 April 2016 (*)
(State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑635/11,
Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE, established in Maroussi Attikis (Greece), represented by N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by P.-J. Loewenthal, D. Triantafyllou and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE, established in Loutraki (Greece), represented by S. Pappas, lawyer,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by Greece in favour of certain Greek casinos (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25),
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),
composed, at the time of the deliberation, of F. Dehousse (Rapporteur), acting as President, I. Labucka and J. Schwarcz, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts, procedure and forms of order sought
1 By Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by Greece in favour of certain Greek casinos (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25), the European Commission took the view that the measure at issue, defined as the discriminatory tax treatment that the Greek authorities had put into place in favour of certain casinos by introducing, simultaneously, a uniform 80% levy on the price of tickets for admission to the casinos and two unequal regulated prices for admission tickets to public and private casinos, set at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively, constituted unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market. The Commission ordered the recovery of the sums at issue.
2 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 August 2011, registered as Case T‑425/11, the Hellenic Republic brought an action for annulment of Decision 2011/716.
3 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 December 2011, the applicant, Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE, also brought the present action for annulment of Decision 2011/716.
4 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested decision;
– in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it applies to the applicant;
– in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
5 The Commission contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
6 By order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 12 December 2012, Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (‘KTL’) was granted leave to intervene in support of the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
7 By judgment of 11 September 2014 in Greece v Commission (T-425/11, ECR, EU:T:2014:768), the Court annulled Decision 2011/716.
8 On 21 November 2014, the Commission lodged an appeal against that judgment before the Court of Justice, registered as Case C‑530/14 P.
9 By order of 12 February 2015, the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court ordered that the proceedings in the present case be stayed, pending delivery of the final ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C‑530/14 P, Commission v Greece.
10 By order of 22 October 2015 in Commission v Greece (C‑530/14 P, EU:C:2015:727), the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission’s appeal and confirmed the judgment in Greece v Commission, cited in paragraph 7 above (EU:T:2014:768).
11 On 23 November 2015, the General Court invited the parties to submit their observations on the order in Commission v Greece, cited in paragraph 10 above (EU:C:2015:727), and on the question whether there was still a need to adjudicate in the present case.
12 By letter of 7 December 2015, the applicant requested that the General Court find that there was no longer any need to adjudicate and that the Commission should be ordered to pay all of the costs.
13 By letters of 4 and 7 December 2015, the Commission and KTL, intervening in its support, expressed the view that the action had become devoid of purpose.
Law
14 Under Article 131(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, of its own motion, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it.
15 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
16 It should be recalled that, according to the case-law, an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which the action will be inadmissible. That interest in bringing proceedings and the purpose of the action must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it (judgment of 7 June 2007 in Wunenburger v Commission, C‑362/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:322, paragraph 42, and order of 16 July 2015 in PAN Europe and Stichting Natuur en Milieu v Commission, T‑574/12, EU:T:2015:541, paragraph 23).
17 It is settled case-law that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on an application for annulment in the event that an applicant has, by reason of an event occurring since the action was brought, lost all legal interest in having the contested measure annulled, which means that the annulment of that measure is, of itself, no longer capable of having legal consequences (see judgment of 23 October 2012 in Vanhecke v Parliament, T‑14/09, EU:T:2012:560, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
18 By the present action, the applicant sought annulment of Decision 2011/716. The annulment of that decision by a judgment of the General Court (judgment in Greece v Commission, cited in paragraph 7 above, EU:T:2014:768) became final through the dismissal of the Commission’s appeal by the order in Commission v Greece, cited in paragraph 10 above (EU:C:2015:727).
19 As a result, it must be held that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.
Costs
20 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court. Pursuant to Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may decide that an intervener is to bear its own costs.
21 In the present case, the fact that the action has become devoid of purpose is a direct result of the fact that the annulment of the Commission’s decision has become definitive.
22 In those circumstances, the Court considers it fair to decide that the Commission shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant in the present action. KTL, intervening in support of the Commission, shall bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.
2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE.
3. Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 19 April 2016.