Weiter zum Inhalt
  • «
  • 1
  • »

Die Suche erzielte 10 Treffer.

Petra Flašker and the Notion of Doubts in the Context of Preliminary Investigations of Both New and Existing Measures · Case T-392/20 Flašker v Commission · Annotation by Marianne Clayton, Gaétan Roelants du Vivier and Matthieu Jamart Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2022 in Case T-392/20 Flašker v Commission

Marianne Clayton, Gaétan Roelants du Vivier, Matthieu Jamart

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 22 (2023), Ausgabe 1, Seite 89 - 94

The judgment of the General Court in Case T-392/20 Flašker v Commission addresses the procedural concept of serious difficulties and the scope of the Commission’s obligation, when investigating complaints, to carry out a thorough examination beyond the mere information provided by the complainants and the national authorities which is also applicable in the context of existing aid. In particular, the General Court reaffirmed the Commission’s responsibility to conduct a proper investigation when faced with serious allegations and insisted that the Commission cannot rely on the fact that the complaint may not be sufficiently substantiated as an argument for dismissing it. More novel, the General Court noted that the Commission had disregarded the existing procedural rules by adopting a decision finding that, assuming that a measure constitutes aid, it amounts to existing aid, but unfortunately did not draw any further conclusions.

Lucchini Revisited: When Judgments Harm Competition · Case C-586/18 P Buonotourist and Case C-587/18 P CSTP Azienda della Mobilità · Annotation by Rosario Federico Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgments of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 in Case C-586/18 P Buonotourist and Case C-587/18 P CSTP Azienda della Mobilità

Rosario Federico

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 20 (2021), Ausgabe 1, Seite 144 - 149

This case note analyses Buonotourist and CSTP Azienda della Mobilità, two recent judgments of the Court of Justice concerning the application of State aid control against overcompensation of public transport companies. The relevance of the judgments stems from the clear stance taken by the Court in relation to the exclusive competence of the European Commission to assess the compatibility of State aid measures, regardless of the judicial activity of national courts. By contrast with previous rulings, where the Court of Justice tried to balance the effective application of Article 107 TFEU and the principle of res iudicata, in the present judgments the focus is all on primacy of EU law over the adjudicatory activity of Member States’ judges. The message for national courts is clear: they must be vigilant against the granting of State aid in any form or the validity of their rulings may be put in question. While this interpretation confirms the importance of competition in the EU legal system, it is legitimate to wonder whether the values of effective judicial protection and legal certainty have been duly considered. The way forward requires an enhanced effort by the Court of Justice to clarify the many open issues which surround the ‘notion of aid’ to make it manageable by national courts.

Illegal Aid Grafted to Public Service Contracts · Case T-292/17 Région Île-de-France · Annotation by Jakub Kociubiński Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 July 2019 in Case T-292/17 Région Île-de-France v European Commission (Bus Services)

Jakub Kociubiński

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 19 (2020), Ausgabe 2, Seite 199 - 204

The subsidy scheme for certain transport undertakings in Île-de-France has been found by the European Commission to be unlawful State aid but ultimately compatible with the Internal Market. Yet, breach of the obligation to notify, declared in the Commission's decision, have resulted in its repeal by national courts and with subsequent adoption of a recovery order of previously received subsidies. Which in turn has led to (unsuccessful) action for the annulment of the Commission's decision in an attempt to eliminate the original legal basis for recovery. The following issues were raised: grounds for classifying a measure as new aid; extent of the obligation to state reasons; the fulfilment of selectivity and advantage criteria.

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

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, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 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.

Alteration to an Existing State Aid · Cases C-510/16 Carrefour, C-492/17 Südwestrundfunk and T-679/16 Athletic Club · Annotation by Benjamin Cheynel Journal Artikel

Annotations on the Judgments of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 in Case C-510/16 Carrefour Hypermarchés and Others, of 13 December 2018 in Case C-492/17 Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger and Others, and of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2019 in Case T-679/16 Athletic Club v Commission

Benjamin Cheynel

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 404 - 412

State Aid and the Free Movement Provisions · Case C-598/17 A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst · Annotation by Marc Custers and Boyd Wolffers Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 in Case C-598/17 A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst.

Marc Custers, Boyd Wolffers

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 561 - 566

This annotation explores the relation between the free movement provisions and State aid in the light of the A-Fonds Case. In A-Fonds, the Court of Justice of the European Union dealt with the question whether a national court may conclude that a measure infringes the freedom of capital with respect to a measure that had been declared State aid by the Commission. A finding that the national court may test the contested measure against the free movement provisions (for the years that the measure constituted existing aid) would have as its result that the measure must be made available to comparable foreign taxpayers. Existing aid should in that case be extended. But that would not have been the only result: such conclusion would have broad consequences. The CJ rules in the A-Fonds Case that the national court may not test the contested measure against the free movement provisions, but has ruled differently in other Cases when dealing with the same issue. This annotation provides an analysis of the different approaches that the CJ took when deciding whether a State aid measure may be tested against the free movement provisions together with the consequences of the different approaches. Keywords: Free movement provisions; Freedom of capital; Existing aid; New aid; National courts; Direct taxation.

Revisiting Some Fundamentals of Fiscal Selectivity: The ANGED Case  ∙ Case C-233/16 ANGED ∙ Annotation  by Juan Jorge Piernas López Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (First Chamber) of 26 April 2018 in Case C-233/16 Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Generalitat de Catalunya

Juan Jorge Piernas López

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 2, Seite 274 - 281

Keywords: Regional tax on large retail establishments; Freedom of establishment; Protection of the environment and town and country planning; State aid; Selective measure; Letter from the Commission stating that no further action will be taken on a complaint; Existing aid.

DEI v European Commision  ∙ C-590/14 P ∙ Annotation by Mihalis Kekelekis Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Appeal Judgement of the CJEU (Tenth Chamber) in Case C-590/14 P DEIof 21 October 2016 (the Follow-Up of Case T-542/11 Alouminion v European Commission)

Mihalis Kekelekis

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 2, Seite 291 - 294

The notion of existing aid has a huge importance in State aid control. Procedural rules for existing aid differ from those regarding new aid. The consequence of granting new or existing aid is also different: from recovery to a proposal to adopt appropriate measures and modify the scheme. As other notions in the State aid field, despite its importance, the notion of existing aid is still evolving by the case-law of the EU courts. This should be an objective concept but as this judgment reveals, it may also be influenced by a subjective analysis regarding State aid compatibility. This judgment also clarifies the role of national courts in the State aid field. National courts must not only serve as guarantors of the direct effect of Article 108(3) TFEU but also as potential aid granting authorities. Keywords: Existing Aid; New Aid; Recovery; Duration; Alteration of an Existing Aid; National Courts; Notification.

  • «
  • 1
  • »