Skip to content

Keyword: Recovery

The search returned 37 results.

Direct Concern in State aid Direct Actions · Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P Scuola Montessori v Commission · Annotation by Luca Carmosino journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 in Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl v European Commission, European Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl and European Commission v Pietro Ferracci

Luca Carmosino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 71 - 75

On 6 November 2018, the Court of Justice rendered a judgment in a proceeding that opposed the Commission and the competitor of a beneficiary of an aid set up by Italy. One of the most interesting issues that the case presents is the question of regulatory acts, and the application of the notion of regulatory acts to State aid decisions. The case explores three elements in relation to admissibility: (i) State aid measures are not sui generis; (ii) State aid decisions further the general application nature of a national measure; and (iii) the assessment of direct concern requires some factual analysis already at the admissibility stage of the procedure. On the substance, the case is interesting since it defines the extent of the Commission’s duties in assessing whether to order the recovery of an illegal State aid.

The Never Ending ‘Saga’ of the Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo · Case C-387/17 Traghetti del Mediterraneo · Annotation by Alessandra Franchi journal article

Annotation of the judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 in Case C-387/17 Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo

Alessandra Franchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 391 - 397

This judgment continues the ‘saga’ related to the litigation between Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo and the Italian State concerning the unlawful State aid granted to Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA as compensation for public service obligations from 1976 to 1980 and shows the complexity of the assessments by national courts on damages related to the granting of unlawful State aid. The CJ provides guidance on the notion of existing aid, clarifying that State aid measures which were granted in a period when the maritime cabotage market was not yet liberalized at Union level cannot be classified as existing aid because of the merely formal absence of liberalisation of that market, to the extent that those subsidies were liable to affect trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition. The CJ also emphasises the cooperation obligation of the national courts and their role in awarding damages related to the distortion of competition created by unlawful State aid. Member State cannot invoke the principle of legitimate expectation in case of breach of the notification obligation set in Article 108 (3) TFEU. Finally, the CJ clarifies that the ten-year limitation period set out in Article 15, paragraph 1, of Regulation 659/1999 (repealed by Regulation 2015/1589), only applies to Commission investigation under Article 108, paragraph 3, TFEU and only refers to the Commission’s power and time limit for recovery of illegal aid, but does not apply in damages proceedings before the national jurisdictions. Keywords: Existing aid; Recovery; National enforcement; Prescription; Damages.

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024