In Case C‑638/19

39By its appeal, the Commission submits that the Court should:

–set aside the judgment under appeal;

–reject the first part of the first plea and the first part of the second plea put forward at first instance in Case T‑704/15, and the first and second parts of the second plea raised in Cases T‑624/15 and T‑694/15;

–refer Joined Cases T‑624/15, T‑694/15 and T‑704/15 back to the General Court for a decision on the remaining pleas in law, and

–reserve the decision as to costs.

40European Food, Starmill, Multipack and Scandic Distilleries, and also MrIoan Micula (together, ‘European Food and Others’) contend that the Court should:

–dismiss the appeal;

–in the alternative, annul the decision at issue;

– in the further alternative, refer the cases back to the General Court; and

–order the Commission and the interveners to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by European Food and Others in respect of the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal.

41MrViorel Micula, European Drinks, Rieni Drinks, Transilvania General Import-Export and West Leasing (together, ‘Viorel Micula and Others’) contend that the Court should:

–dismiss the appeal;

–in the alternative, uphold the second plea at first instance put forward in Case T‑704/15 and, accordingly, annul the decision at issue;

–in the further alternative, refer the cases back to the General Court;

–order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Viorel Micula and Others in respect of the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal; and

–order the Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs in respect of the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal.

42The Kingdom of Spain contends that the Court should:

–allow the appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and dismiss the action at first instance as inadmissible; and

–in the alternative, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded.

43By its cross-appeal, the Kingdom of Spain submits that the Court should:

–set aside the judgment under appeal;

–dismiss the action at first instance as inadmissible; and

–order European Food and Others and Viorel Micula and Others to pay the costs.

44The Commission submits that the cross-appeal should be allowed.

45European Food and Others and Viorel Micula and Others contend that the cross-appeal should be dismissed and that the Kingdom of Spain, the Commission and the interveners should be ordered to bear their own costs in respect of the cross-appeal and that the Kingdom of Spain should be ordered to pay the costs incurred by European Food and Others and by Viorel Micula and Others in the context of the cross-appeal.

46The Republic of Poland and the Republic of Latvia applied, by letters dated 25November and 5December 2019 respectively, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for leave to intervene in support of the Commission.

47By decisions of the President of the Court of 6 and 9January 2020 the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Latvia respectively were granted leave to intervene, the latter Member State only, in accordance with Article129(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, in order to submit its observations at the hearing, should a hearing take place, its application to intervene having been made after the time limit set out in Article190(2) of those rules had expired.

48By letters of 17March 2020, European Food and Others and Viorel Micula and Others requested that the Court exclude the Kingdom of Spain as a party to these proceedings, and, therefore, reject the response to the main appeal lodged by that Member State. In support of that request those parties state that although it is true that, as a Member State, the Kingdom of Spain was not required to demonstrate an interest in order to intervene in the proceedings before the General Court on the basis of the first paragraph of Article40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, under Article172 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, however, any party to the case in question before the General Court– including a Member State– should, in order to be a party to the appeal proceedings, demonstrate an interest in that appeal being allowed or dismissed. That condition, which was introduced at the time those rules were redrafted in 2012 should also apply to Member States.

49By letter of 29March 2020, the Court Registry, following the decision taken by the President of the Court of Justice, after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, informed the parties that their request had been rejected on the ground that, having been authorised as a Member State to intervene at first instance, under Article40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the Kingdom of Spain was automatically a party to the appeal.

50By letters of 16December 2020, the Federal Republic of Germany applied, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to intervene in support of the Commission.

51By decision of the President of the Court of 12January 2021, that Member State was granted leave to intervene, in accordance with Article129(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, in order to submit its observations at the hearing, should a hearing take place, its application to intervene having been made after the time limit set out in Article190(2) of those rules had expired.