Weiter zum Inhalt
  • «
  • 1
  • »

Die Suche erzielte 3 Treffer.

Quo Vadis Access to Documents in State Aid Investigations? · Case T-134/20 Huhtamaki Sàrl · Annotation by Federico Fichera Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (First Chamber) of 2 March 2022 in Case T-134/20 Huhtamaki Sàrl v European Commission

Federico Fichera

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 21 (2022), Ausgabe 4, Seite 441 - 448

On 2 March 2022, the First Chamber of the General Court of the European Union gave its judgment in Case T-134/20 Huhtamaki v Commission, which concerned the right to access to the documents of a State aid investigation's file. While the judgment confirmed a number of principles that have been consistently upheld by the case law of the Court of Justice, it also raised some interesting points concerning the obligation for the European Commission to state reason in case of a well-circumstanced request for access to documents. The General Court explained that the Commission should, when assessing such requests, take into consideration and give a separate motivation for the different (sub)categories of documents requested, thus introducing an element of novelty in such an assessment. This approach, not fully developed by the General Court, might redesign the presumption of confidentiality that traditionally applies to documents belonging to a State aid investigation's file. Moreover, there is a risk that it would cause an increase of disputes linked to requests for access to documents in the context of State aid investigations and jeopardise the Commission's assessment of such requests.

IFPEN: This is the End… of the French ‘EPIC’ State Aid Litigation Saga(s) · Joint Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV IFPEN · Annotation by Jean-Alexandre Vaglio Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (Eight Chamber) of 5 October 2020 in Joint Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles v European Commission

Jean-Alexandre Vaglio

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 20 (2021), Ausgabe 1, Seite 108 - 113

The General Court finally closed the IFPEN saga with its judgment delivered on 5 October 2020 and which raised many interesting points. First, IFPEN was peculiar in the sense that, contrary to EDF and La Poste, it was an EPIC undertaking pursuing mainly non-economic activities. Second, this judgment enables the General Court to refine and illustrate the simple presumption defined by the Court of Justice in the La Poste judgment on its EPIC status. Finally, this case provides another reminder of the burden of proof resting on the Commission when it demonstrates the existence of an advantage and defines the conditions of compatibility of a State aid measure.

The Role of Presumptions and the Burden of Proof in Recent State Aid Cases – Some Reflections Journal Artikel

Leigh Hancher

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 470 - 488

Until relatively recently, only a handful of State aid cases raised the question of who should discharge the burden of proof. In the past twelve months the issue has begun to surface more regularly. This article examines the role of presumptions in understanding how the burden of proof is allocated in State aid cases before the European courts. Presumptions are a well-established tool in EU competition law. In theory it is for the party alleging that a State aid has been granted — usually the Commission — to show that the State measure confers a selective advantage on the beneficiary. Depending on what ‘hat’ the Member State is wearing when it confers a benefit, the evidentiary burden may shift back to itself to rebut a presumption as to how it has or intends to intervene. This contribution examines the role of presumptions and the allocation of the burden of proof depending on whether the State claims that it acts as a market investor, whether it exercises a public prerogative or whether it arranges the provision of services of general economic interest. Finally, the article briefly considers the burden of proof on third parties, especially in cases where the state authorities have not actively engaged in the rebuttal of a presumption by the Commission.

  • «
  • 1
  • »