Skip to content

The search returned 13 results.



‘Naked Economic Nationalism’ · Case T-111/21 Croatia Airlines - COVID-19 · Annotation by Marijana Liszt journal article

Annotation of the Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 in Case T-111/21 Croatia Airlines - COVID-19

Marijana Liszt

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 199 - 204

This case note concerns one of many European Commission decisions approving State aid as damage compensation to airlines due to extraordinary occurrences (COVID-19 outbreak), on the basis of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, considered to be an ‘automatic exemption’, meaning that the discretionary powers of the Commission are confined to verifying the fulfilment of the required conditions. This Commission decision has been challenged by the tireless Ryanair DAC, which has been challenging many State aid measures granted to airlines by the Member states simultaneously, on the basis of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU as well as other applicable grounds (Article 107(3)(b); the COVID-19 Temporary Framework). This judgment has been chosen as it refers to Croatia Airlines, the Croatian national air carrier, presenting the first ever General Court decision referring to State aid granted to a Croatian undertaking by the Republic of Croatia. The case raises several peculiar legal questions concerning the notions of discrimination and the difference in treatment. It is also worth mentioning the Court’s argument regarding Croatia Airlines’ essential role in Croatia’s air transport connectivity.


Covid State Aid Policy for Aviation Backfired · Joined cases T-34/21 and T-87/21 Ryanair and Condor v Commission (Lufthansa; COVID-19) · Annotation by Tania Pantazi journal article

Annotation of the Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2023 in Joined cases T-34/21 and T-87/21 Ryanair and Condor v Commission (Lufthansa; COVID-19)

Tania Pantazi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 4, Page 414 - 419

State aid to European airlines during the Covid-19 crisis has been the object of several judgments of the General Court since 2021. This case marks a turn in previous case law, as it annuls the approval of the Commission for multiple reasons of substance relating to misapplication of the Covid State Aid Temporary Framework. The measure at issue was a recapitalisation scheme for one of Europe’s largest airline groups, Deutsche Lufthansa. The decision may affect other pending cases on measures for European airlines.


Comune di Milano: Explanation of the Conditions under Which an Injection of Capital Became a State Aid Measure · Case C-160/19 P Comune di Milano v Commission · Annotation by Alice Pisapia journal article

Annotation of the Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2020 in Case C-160/19 P Comune di Milano v Commission

Alice Pisapia

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 2, Page 188 - 193

The 2020 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union – C-160/19 P Comune di Milano v Commission – illustrates under which conditions the injection of capital in a company owned and controlled by the State can be considered a measure imputable to the State. The City of Milan (Comune di Milano) tried, until last instance, to defend the injection of public capital in the company SEA Handling SpA which was managing ground services at Milan-Linate and Milan-Malpensa airports. However, the appeal against the judgment of the General Court was supporting the Commission’s interpretation about the qualification of the measure as a State aid unlawfully provided and, in any case, incompatible with the European internal market. The present case note analyses two relevant juridical concepts: the private operator principle as applied by the Court with the private investor test, and the intensity of the judicial review to be applied by the Court during the appeal of a Commission decision in case of complex economic assessments. Finally, given the apical role of the Commission in State aid, the Court cannot replace the assessment carried out by the Commission; it can only revise it if the misapplication of the private investor principle was vitiated by a manifest error.


Transport Companies Are Entitled to Compensation for Public Service Obligations Imposed by General Rules · Case C‑614/20 Lux Express Estonia · Annotation by Benjamin Linke journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2022 in Case C‑614/20 Lux Express Estonia

Benjamin Linke

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 419 - 424

It has been controversial for years whether transport companies were entitled to compensation for the burden of tariff obligations imposed by competent authorities. The ECJ has now granted the transport companies a claim derived from Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007. In view of the political discussions about compensation obligations in the legislative process for the Regulation, this comes as a surprise. Henceforth, however, companies will be entitled to compensation for all negative effects (less all positive effects) of maximum tariffs imposed outside public service contracts through so called general rules.


The Application of State Aid Rules to Markets Subject to Legal Monopolies · Case C-385/18 P Arriva Italia · Annotation by Federica Maldari journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 in Case C-385/18 P Arriva Italia Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Federica Maldari

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 1, Page 66 - 73

The Case at issue provides a guidance on the notions of advantage and distortion of competition for the purpose of classifying a State intervention as State aid, and a clarification on the application of the State aid rules to markets which are subject to legal monopolies. The Case arises from the Italian government’s intervention for the benefit of a State-owned operator in a serious financial situation, active in the railway and transport services sectors. In particular, the intervention concerns (i) the statutory allocation of € 70 million for the benefit of the operator and (ii) the transfer of the entire shareholding of the government in that operator, for no consideration, to another State-owned operator of the national railway infrastructure to restore the financial viability of the transferred company. Other public providers having an interest in the transferred company challenged the legality of those measures, arguing that they constitute State aid. Therefore, the Italian Council of State asked the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Articles 107 and 108(3) TFEU in respect to the afore-mentioned measures. Keywords: Legal Monopolies; Exclusive Rights; Transport Sector; State-Owned Operator.


Commission’s Decisional Practice on State Aid to Railway Companies for Transport Coordination journal article

Germano Guglielmi, Stefania Bello

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 297 - 313

The concept of coordination of transport set forth by Article 93 TFEU is actually very vague. The Railway Guidelines provide guidance and criteria for the interpretation of this concept and the direct application to railway undertakings of Article 93 TFEU. This article focuses on the Commission Decisions concerning transport coordination, which directly or indirectly concern railway transport. In particular, the research aims at reconstructing State aid measures adopted between 2008 and 2019, assessed by the Commission pursuant either to Article 93 TFEU or to both Article 93 TFEU and the Railway Guidelines. The main purposes of this article are, firstly, to analyse how the Commission applied and interpreted this specific exception and, secondly, to assess whether the Railway Guidelines are sufficiently exhaustive or, on the contrary, they should be updated and/or extended in light of a potential revision under evaluation by the Commission. Keywords: transport coordination, Article 93 TFEU, Railway Guidelines


The Thin Red Line Between Existing and New Aid: The Buonotourist Case · Case T-185/15 Buonotourist Srl v European Commission · Annotation by Davide Guadagnino journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 in Case T-185/15 Buonotourist Srl v European Commission.

Davide Guadagnino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 2, Page 192 - 197

This note offers a detailed overview on the Buonotourist Case (T-185/15), where the General Court confirmed Commission Decision 2015/575 ordering the recovery of the beneficiary’s extra compensation regime. It provides an in-depth analysis of the application of Regulation (EC) 659/1999, highlighting the procedural and substantive aspects relating to the notions of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’. First, the note provides a description of the background to the dispute, focusing on the compensation granted to Buonotourist Srl for the costs occurred in the fulfilment of its public service obligations, as well as the related Commission Decision. Then, the Court’s reasoning is underlined, namely the assessment of the compensatory regime in the light of the exemption established under Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) 1191/69 and the Altmark judgment. The annotation highlights the controversial aspects of the measure, such as the ex post calculation of the compensation and the absence of unilaterally imposed public service obligations, which led to its classification as ‘new aid’. Finally, the author’s opinion is given, focusing on the nature of public service obligations and the applicability of Article 93 TFEU in the case at hand. Keywords: Public transport; SGEI; Compensation; Altmark; New aid.


Public Authority or Economic Activity in the Context of Public Infrastructures journal article

An Assessment of the European Commission’s Policy After Leipzig-Halle

Rass Holdgaard, Grith Skovgaard Ølykke, Rasmus Grønved Nielsen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 274 - 292

The introduction of a more economic approach in State aid control should be viewed as a healthy development. However, before subjecting public spending to the constraints of thorough economic analysis it is necessary to ask whether State aid control is requisite and meaningful at all. A corner stone of this assessment is to determine the dividing line between exercise of public authority and economic activities. In this paper, we raise concerns about the Commission’s recent approach to distinguishing between exercise of public authority and economic activity in the context of general transport infrastructure. The Commission’s approach and notably its new focus on the concept of ‘commercial exploitation’ may overstretch existing Case law and thus the notion of aid. It is concluded that the Commission should return to a more nuanced and specific assessment of each activity when it draws this important line. Keywords: Concept of undertaking; Public authority; Economic activity; General transport infrastructure