Philipp Werner, Théodore Plat

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 23 (2024), Issue 1, Page 62 - 68

The judgment Commission v Braesch relates to the standing of third parties to bring an action for annulment against a Commission decision in the preliminary examination stage. The Court provides important clarifications on the scope of this type of decision and on the concept of “interested parties”, especially with regard to commitments given by a Member State during the notification phase.

Jorge Risueño

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 3, Page 337 - 342

This case note concerns Região Autónoma da Madeira’s (RAM) action for annulment of the Commission decision relating the aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) implemented by Portugal in favour of the free trade zone of Madeira.1 The General Court’s judgment presents a unique opportunity to analyse some key State aid concepts, including procedural aspects, such as the admissibility of infra-State bodies; concepts relating to the notion of State aid, such as the selectivity criterion; and concepts relating to the phase of recovery of unlawful aid, including the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality and the limitation period. This note also addresses the Court’s assessment of whether aid is new or existing.

Wout De Cock

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 2, Page 194 - 195

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.

Federica Maldari

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 398 - 403

The Case deals with the decision of Portuguese authorities to put Banco Espirito Santo SA (BES) into resolution and to immediately create a ‘Bridge Bank’. The Portuguese authorities notified to the EC the proposal to grant €4.899 million of State aid to the ‘Bridge Bank’ by way of initial share capital. The EC concluded that the State aid at issue was compatible with the internal market. BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other subordinated creditors of BES initiated proceedings before national courts and ultimately to the Court of the Justice of the European Union. On 7 November 2018, the Court of Justice rejected the General Court’s Order to dismiss the action as inadmissible due to lack of interest. Consequently, the Court of Justice confirmed the principle that an interest in bringing annulment proceedings may arise where the annulment might benefit the applicant in pending proceedings before national courts. Keywords: State aid; Financial crisis; Subordinated creditors; Damages; Annulment proceedings; National legal basis.