Appeal brought on 8 May 2024 by Scandlines Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2024 in Case T-390/20, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
(Case C-342/24 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, advokat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Scandlines Danmark ApS, European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA), Danish Ferry Association, Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) eV, Verband Deutscher Reeder eV, Aktionsbündnis gegen eine feste Fehmarnbeltquerung eV, Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart (FSS), Rederi AB Nordö-Link, Trelleborg Hamn AB, Kingdom of Denmark
Form of order sought
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed the Appellant’s action for the annulment of the 20 March 2020 decision1 ;
order the Respondent to pay its own costs and the costs of the Appellant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant brings a single plea in law against the contested judgment arguing that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in finding that the Commission did not commit a manifest error when it found that the aid to Femern A/S is aid that is compatible with the internal market. The Appellant divides the single plea into three subpleas.
1.1. With the first subplea, the Appellant argues that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts when it concluded that the Commission was right to rely on a lifetime of only 40 years for calculating the internal rate of return and the funding gap.
1.2. With the second subplea, the Appellant argues that the General Court erred in law by concluding that the measure was proportionate. This subplea is further divided into three parts:
1.2.1. First, that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the aid was limited in time given both the uncertain end of the repayment period and of the total length of that period.
1.2.2. Second, that the General Court erred in law when assessing the funding gap because it underestimated Femern’s revenues, overestimated its costs and relied on a too short lifetime.
1.2.3. Third, that the General Court erred in law as regards the Commission’s identification of the aid amount which is too small.
1.3. With the third subplea, the Appellant argues that the General Court erred in law by concluding that the measure did not distort competition.
____________
1 Commission Decision C(2020) 1683 final of 20 March 2020 on the State aid SA.39078 – 2019/C (ex 2014/N) which Denmark implemented for Femern A/S (OJ 2020, L 339, p. 1).