Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 2 results.

Performance of SGEI Tasks Cannot, of Itself, Justify an Exemption from the Notification and Standstill Obligations · Case C-445/19 Viasat · Annotation by Alessandra Fratini journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 in Case C-445/19 Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd. v TV2 Denmark A/S and Kingdom of Denmark

Alessandra Fratini

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 1, Page 150 - 153

The Court of Justice confirmed the obligation for a national judge to order the payment of illegality interest also where the aid, implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, has been declared by the Commission compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU. By extending the findings in CELF to illegal State aid granted in favour of undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, the Court has clarified that the performance of SGEI tasks cannot, in and of itself, justify an exemption from the notification and standstill requirements under Article 108(3) TFEU.


Extension of Formal Investigation Procedure and Obligation to State Reasons · Case T-388/11 Deutsche Post · Annotation by Alessandra Fratini journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 April 2019 in Case T-388/11 Deutsche Post v European Commission

Alessandra Fratini

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 372 - 376

On 10 April 2019, the General Court handed down yet another judgment in the long-lasting Deutsche Post saga, this time addressing the challenges brought against the Commission Decision extending the formal investigation procedure with regard to the pension subsidies granted to Deutsche Post for the employees with civil servant status. While it may not be the end of the story, the judgment provides interesting insights on the binding legal effects of a Decision to extend an ongoing formal investigation, for the purposes of it constituting an act open to challenge under Article 263 TFEU. It also sheds light on the Commission’s obligation to state reasons concerning the existence of a selective economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, when the beneficiary is in a situation which cannot be compared with the one of its competitors due to the peculiar legal regime that is applicable to it. Keywords: Challengeable act; Independent effects of the Decision extending a formal investigation; Interest in bringing an action; Advantage; Duty to state reasons; Incomparable position of the beneficiary.

  • «
  • 1
  • »