Tamás Kende, Gábor Puskás

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 205 - 211

Article 107(3)(c) TFEU requires a delicate balancing of the positive effects of the aid aiming the development of certain economic activities and the negative effects thereof. The Paks II judgment provides clarifications as to the limits of this balancing process and the European Commission’s obligations to take into account primary and secondary EU laws other than those related to State aid, as well as fundamental goals of the EU Treaties like the protection of environment. The Paks II judgment also confirms that State aid rules are also applicable concerning activities falling under the EURATOM Treaty and clarifies the relationship between State aid and public procurement and an infringement procedure and a State aid procedure. The Paks II judgment also shows that Member States have a hard time with challenging the Commission’s State aid decisions if they rely on an alleged err in law or they attack the Commission’s discretionary powers and the proper application thereof.

Tamás Kende, Gábor Puskás

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 3, Page 329 - 336

On 14 June 2023, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment on the latest Ryanair case involving Montpellier airport.1 The applicants had challenged the European Commission's decision that the State provides illegal State aid not only when it orders a service at a price other than the market price, but also when it has no real need for that service, no matter how much it pays for it. The scope of application of the ‘real need’ test and criteria of the Commission’s assessment of the real needs of state entities may become a new battleground, and soon.

Tamás Kende, Gábor Puskás

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 2, Page 270 - 276

In Case C-456/18 P the Court of Justice (CJ) found in favour of Hungary on the matter of an appeal against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union (GC). The CJ annulled the relevant parts of the European Commission’s (Commission) decisions on suspending the application of two very similar Hungarian progressive tax regimes. The fact that the two tax regimes constituted State aid was not subject matter of the case. The case concerned whether the Commission was justified assuming that Hungary would not comply with its obligation not to put into or suspend the operation of its State aid measure under Article 108(3) of the TFEU. The reasons the Commission gave to its suspension injunction were twofold: (1) that Hungary contested the Commission's conclusions and (2) that Hungarian authorities have not made comments on (practically have not objected to) the planned suspension injunction. As opposed to the General Court, the Court of Justice found these reasons insufficient for applying a suspension injunction. The CJ’s judgment will force the Commission to limit its suspension injunctions inter alia to cases where an irreversible change would have occurred (had the aid measure not been suspended) or where likely non-compliance by the Member State can be assumed. The CJ did not determine exactly when such a non-compliance can be assumed.