Appeal brought on 3 December 2020 by Bankia S.A., Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco, SA, Liberbank, S.A., Banco de Sabadell, S.A., Banco Gallego S.A., Catalunya Banc, S.A.,, Banco de Santanader, S.A., Santander Investment, S.A., Naviera Séneca, A.I.E. Caixabank, S.A., Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A., Naviera Nebulosa de Omega, A.I.E., Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A., Abanca Corporación Bancaria, S.A., Ibercaja Banco, S.A., Banco Grupo Cajatres, S.A.U., Naviera Bósforo, A.I.E., Joyería Tous, S.A., Corporación Alimentaria Guissona, S.A., Naviera Muriola, A.I.E., Poal Investments XXI, S.L., Poal Investments XXII, S.L., Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C-1658, A.I.E., Naviera Cabo Domaio, C-1659, A.I.E., Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos, S.L., Blumaq, S.A., Grupo Ibérica de Congelados, S.A., RNB, S.L., Inversiones Antaviana, S.L., Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U., Banco de Albacete, S.A., Bodegas Muga, S.L., and Aluminios Cortizo, S.A.U. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV, Kingdom of Spain and Others v Commission
(Case C-662/20 P)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellants: Bankia S.A., Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco, SA, Liberbank, S.A., Banco de Sabadell, S.A., Banco Gallego S.A., Catalunya Banc, S.A.,, Banco de Santanader, S.A., Santander Investment, S.A., Naviera Séneca, A.I.E. Caixabank, S.A., Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A., Naviera Nebulosa de Omega, A.I.E., Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A., Abanca Corporación Bancaria, S.A., Ibercaja Banco, S.A., Banco Grupo Cajatres, S.A.U., Naviera Bósforo, A.I.E., Joyería Tous, S.A., Corporación Alimentaria Guissona, S.A., Naviera Muriola, A.I.E., Poal Investments XXI, S.L., Poal Investments XXII, S.L., Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C-1658, A.I.E., Naviera Cabo Domaio, C-1659, A.I.E., Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos, S.L., Blumaq, S.A., Grupo Ibérica de Congelados, S.A., RNB, S.L., Inversiones Antaviana, S.L., Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U., Banco de Albacete, S.A., Bodegas Muga, S.L., and Aluminios Cortizo, S.A.U. (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commssion, Lico Leasing, S.A.U, and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, S.A.
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
declare that the grounds of appeal are admissible and uphold those grounds;
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV, Kingdom of Spain and Others v Commission. 1
annul Commission Decision of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 2 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (‘STLS’) and, in particular, Article 1 in so far as it declares the STLS as unlawful State aid and, in the alternative, Article 4(1) in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid in its entirety from the EIG investors.
order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The appellants ask the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment under appeal on the following grounds:
First ground of appeal: misinterpretation and misapplication by the General Court of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the concept of selectivity. In particular, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in its analysis of the alleged ‘sectoral selectivity’ of the STLS (first sub-ground). In the alternative, and in the event that the Court of Justice does not uphold the first sub-ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the case-law of the EU Courts on the alleged discretionary power of the tax authorities (second sub-ground).
Second ground of appeal: misapplication by the General Court of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Third ground of appeal: misapplication by the General Court of the principles applicable to the recovery of aid.
____________
1 EU:T:2020:434.
2 OJ 2014 L 114, p. 1.