Appeal brought on 14 February 2024 by UNO, Organización Empresarial de Logística y Transporte, against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 November 2023 in Case T-514/20, UNO v Commission

(Case C-126/24 P)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: UNO, Organización Empresarial de Logística y Transporte (represented by: J.M. Piqueras Ruiz, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission; Kingdom of Spain; Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2023 in Case T-514/20, UNO v Commission, EU:T:2023:767;

examine the case and take a final decision on the admissibility of the action brought by UNO on 15 August 2020 against the Decision of 14 May 2020 in the State aid case SA.50872 (2020/NN) – Spain – USO compensation to Correos, 2011-2020, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction;

refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits of that action;

order the respondent to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in these proceedings and at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal:

̶    Infringement by the General Court of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in finding, in particular, that UNO had not demonstrated that the decision at issue was capable of substantially affecting the position of at least one of its members in the relevant market. Specifically, the General Court erred in law in imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the appellant as regards proof of its standing to bring proceedings, in breach of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

̶    Infringement by the General Court of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in finding that UNO had not demonstrated that the decision at issue was of individual concern to it because its own interests as an association were affected. In its examination of whether UNO had established that it had standing to bring proceedings, the General Court distorted the facts submitted to it by the appellant.

̶    Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as the General Court applied the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU arbitrarily and conducted the proceedings at first instance in a manner contrary to the effective and sound administration of justice.

̶    Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on grounds of failure to observe the right to effective judicial protection arising from the dismissal as inadmissible of the action for annulment brought by UNO.

____________