Appeal brought on 11 November 2022 by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy v European Commission
(Case C-697/22 P)
Language of the case: Finnish
Parties
Appellant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (represented by: O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland, Nobina Oy and Nobina AB
Form of order sought
set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 1 in its entirety;
grant in full the form of order sought by the appellant before the General Court on the grounds set out in the appeal; and
order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, together with statutory interest;
Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case T-603/19 the General Court of the European Union infringed EU law and erred in law by dismissing the action brought by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy.
In the first plea, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, the General Court erred, because the contested Commission decision was adopted in breach of the appellant’s procedural rights.
The General Court also incorrectly ruled on the fourth plea in so far as it relates to compliance with the principle of proportionality.
The judgment of the General Court is contrary to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, 1 and violates fundamental principles of EU law, namely the right to be heard in a case concerning it and the principle of proportionality.
In its appeal, the appellant argues that the right to be heard in administrative proceedings constitutes a fundamental right. Failure to give the party concerned the opportunity to be heard before a decision contrary to its interests is taken constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements.
The applicant also submits that excessive recovery constitutes a measure contrary to the principle of proportionality and to the purpose of the recovery. When the beneficiary of a transfer of business is subject to an order for recovery, it is always necessary to determine to what extent the latter may still possibly benefit from the prohibited State aid, in other words, it is necessary to determine the amount of benefit transferred.
____________
1 EU:T:2022:555.
1 Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).