Juan Jorge Piernas López

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 458 - 460

Maria Segura, Alix Mengin

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 572 - 577

In its judgment of 21 October 2020 regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from the French Conseil d’État in Case C-556/19 Eco TLC, the Court of Justice addresses the interpretation of the notion of ‘State resources’ under Article 107, paragraph 1, of the TFEU in the context of an extended producer responsibility scheme established in France. The system requires undertakings producing TLC products (textile, household linen and footwear) to cover the costs for management of waste from these products by paying a contribution to an eco-body, approved by the State which enters into agreements with sorting operators and provides them the necessary financial support for the recycling and treatment of said waste. The judgment confirms the necessity of a detailed and nuanced assessment of the facts of each case when it comes to the analysis of the criterion State resources. The outcome may have been surprising for the referring Court, as well as for practitioners, but follows a coherent approach with previous case law such as the EEG judgment or the landmark case PreussenElektra.

Sylvain Petit

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 1, Page 139 - 143

On 21 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down a preliminary ruling on the notion of ‘State resources’ regarding the French increased responsibility scheme for producers of waste from textile products, household linen and footwear products (TLC products). The CJEU ruled that a system set up by the State whereby producers of TLC products pay financial contributions to an eco-body which then enters into an agreement with sorting operators and provide them financial support for the recycling and treatment operations of the waste, may not constitute an intervention through State resources. This ruling emphasizes that the notion of ‘public control’ lies in the details: a range of circumstantial evidences is required to determine the extent of the public oversight over the funds channelled between private operators.

Rene Brunner

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 413 - 417

On 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a ruling on the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a Commission Decision where the applicants in the main proceedings did not bring an action for annulment against that Decision before the General Court. The judgment Georgsmarienhütte re-evaluates the interrelationship between the action for annulment and the preliminary reference procedure and is, in essence, a reiteration of the TWD doctrine established already in 1994. Keywords: Action for annulment; Preliminary ruling procedure; Dual remedy; Parallel proceedings; National courts; TWD doctrine.

Adam Scott

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 3, Page 354 - 366

This article examines implications of EU State aid law for tasks that a national court must undertake, may undertake and also tasks that they must not undertake because such tasks are in the jurisdiction of the Commission. It examines ways in which the Commission should be asked to assist the national courts; the questions that a national court should (or may wish to) put to the Commission and instances in which the Commission may wish to intervene as an amicus curiae. Interaction of substantive and procedural law at EU level with their counterparts at national level is seen to be important in ensuring that EU law is effectively and equivalently applied nationally. Keywords: National Courts; Procedural and Interpretive Guidance; Amicius Curiae; Preliminary Ruling; Black Cabs.