The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the Court dismisses the majority of Michelin’s appeal against the Commission decision ordering an inspection at Michelin, but annuls it insofar as it relates to an earlier suspected infringement period.
The General Court considers that the Commission had sufficiently serious indicia concerning the main period covered by the Commission decision to conduct an unannounced inspection at the premises of Michelin to investigate its suspected participation in a cartel in violation of Article 101 TFEU. Nevertheless, the General Court finds that the indicia were not sufficient for an earlier period and annuls the inspection decision insofar as it relates to that earlier period.
The judgment confirms that the inspection decision was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate in respect of the suspected infringement during the main period.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
The inspections carried out at other premises were neither challenged, nor annulled.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court of justice clarifies the notions of “granting” and “existing aid” in relation to an individual grant within a COVID aid scheme, in a situation where the national authority’s refusal to grant the aid is later declared unlawful by a national court after the expiry of the time limit set by the Commission decision approving the aid scheme. The classification as new or existing aid has a direct impact on the possibility for the national authority to lawfully pay the aid to the beneficiary after the wrongful refusal.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice. The Court annulled the Order of the General Court, which declared as inadmissible the challenge of a Commission letter confirming to a complainant that it did not qualify as an interested party under State aid procedural rules.
The Court provided clarifications regarding the notion of confirmatory act. In particular, the Court clarified under which circumstances an act cannot be considered as purely confirmatory.
The case will now go back to the General Court which will rule on the substance.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-289/24 rejecting Brasserie Nationale’s action for annulment against the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2024. In its decision, the Commission accepted the referral request under Article 22 EU Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’) submitted by the Luxembourgish Competition Authority for the Commission to examine the acquisition of Boissons Heintz by Brasserie Nationale.
In its judgment, the General Court confirmed that the Commission is in principle empowered to accept referral requests from Luxembourg, a Member State that does not have a national merger control review system, under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, if the conditions for such referral are met. It therefore confirmed the Commission’s power to review the compatibility of Brasserie Nationale’s acquisition of Boissons Heintz with the internal market under the EUMR.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court dismissing the actions brought forward by Spain and Cellnex seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 2021 on the deployment of digital terrestrial television by Spain (case SA.28599).
In the 2021 decision, the Commission found that the Spanish scheme amounted to State aid that was incompatible with the internal market and ordered its recovery, except in cases where the aids were technologically neutral. The 2021 decision also took into account concerns expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which had annulled the previous Commission decision of 2013 for reasons of lack of motivation as regards the selectivity of the measure.
The case concerns a Spanish scheme to support the deployment, maintenance and operation of the digital terrestrial television network in certain rural areas in Spain (so-called “Area II” – less urbanised and remote areas covering 2.5% of the population) in the period 2005-2013. The Commission received a complaint from a satellite operator in 2009 and opened formal investigation in 2010. The measure at issue in case SA.28599 covered all Spanish regions except Castilla la-Mancha, region for which there was a separate State aid investigation (SA.27408).
See also Judgment in case T-489/21 Spain v Commission.

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union upholding the 2023 judgments of the General Court. In its judgments, the General Court upheld a 2019 Commission's decision approving, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of certain E.ON power generation assets by RWE.
In its judgments, the Court of Justice confirmed that the Commission was correct in assessing the different parts of the asset swap as two separate concentrations.
Furthermore, the Court of Justice confirmed that the analytical framework applied by the Commission was sufficiently and adequately explained.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice upholding a previous judgment of the General Court which had annulled the Commission decision of 2014 on the Spanish Goodwill aid scheme for indirect acquisitions.
The original scheme, a Spanish tax scheme concerning the amortisation of financial goodwill only for qualified acquisitions of shares in foreign companies, had already been declared illegal and incompatible aid by way of Commission decisions of 2009 and 2011. In the 2009 and 2011 decisions, the Commission accepted legitimate expectations for certain situations stemming from Commission responses to parliamentary questions in 2005-2006, consequently waiving the recovery in such cases. These decisions were fully upheld by the Court of Justice in 2021.
In 2012, Spain adopted a new administrative interpretation retroactively extending the scope of the scheme to indirect acquisitions subject to the legitimate expectations covered by the 2009 and 2011 decisions. The Commission decision of 2014 declared that the retroactive extension of scope amounted to new aid and could not benefit from legitimate expectations, as it had been implemented by Spain in 2012, when the 2009 and 2011 decisions had already confirmed that the scheme amounted to State aid.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal by the Commission, confirming the annulment of the 2014 decision. The Court of Justice ruled that the wording of the legitimate expectations acknowledged in the 2009 and 2011 decisions expressly refers to both direct and indirect transactions, thus both types of acquisitions are protected from the obligation to recover the aid. Furthermore, the Court of Justice found that the principle of legal certainty precludes the Commission from classifying the extension of the scope to indirect acquisitions as unlawful new aid.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court that annuls a 2021 State aid decision, in which the Commission found that the aid granted to the Lithuanian public service broadcaster LRT constituted existing aid and therefore rejected the complaint.
In its judgment, the Court found that the Commission should have initiated formal proceedings, since the financing of the LRT – that existed prior to Lithuania’s accession to the EU - was substantially changed subsequently.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court dismissing the applicants’ actions which sought the annulment of Commission decision of 15.3.2021 in case SA.55805. In that decision, the Commission found that the extension of the frequency allocations of digital terrestrial TV (DTT) network operators until 2030 by Czechia constitutes ‘no aid’.
In its judgment, the General Court dismissed the actions of the applicants as inadmissible, as they did not sufficiently demonstrate to be individually concerned by the Commission decision. The General Court also confirmed the position of the Commission that the measure was not an aid scheme.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-581/23 Beevers Kaas.
The judgment clarifies under which conditions an exclusive distribution system may benefit from an exemption under the 2010 Vertical Block Exemption Regulation.
The Court confirmed for the first time that one of the conditions for an active sales ban imposed to protect an exclusive distribution system to benefit from the 2010 Vertical Block Exemption regulation is that the supplier must obtain the (express or implicit) acceptance of the sales ban by all its other distributors in the EEA.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court, which dismissed Deutsche Lufthansa AG’s application for annulment of a 2017 Commission State aid decision finding that the financing of the operator of Frankfurt-Hahn airport between 2018 – 2022 was in line with EU State aid rules.
Today’s judgment follows a 2021 judgment in which the General Court initially annulled the Commission decision and a 2023 ruling by the Court of Justice, which referred the case back to the General Court following an appeal by Rhineland-Palatinate (majority shareholder of Frankfurt-Hahn at the time), case C-466/21 P. The Court of Justice saw errors in the General Court’s assessment of Deutsche Lufthansa’s AG standing and the admissibility of its action.
The General Court, taking into account the Court of Justice’s ruling, held that the application for annulment should be rejected as inadmissible. In its application, Deutsche Lufthansa AG has not expressly raised a plea alleging an infringement of its procedural rights. Given that the application was already declared inadmissible on that basis, the General Court has left open whether Deutsche Lufthansa AG can be considered as an interested third party.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the Court dismisses Symrise’s appeal against the Commission decision ordering an inspection at Symrise AG.
The General Court upholds the Commission decision that entitled the Commission to conduct an unannounced inspection at the premises of Symrise for investigating its possible participation in a cartel in violation of Article 101 TFEU.
The judgment confirms that the inspection decision was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice on this preliminary reference case. The Court considered that the exemption from the Polish tax on immovable property for land, buildings and structures forming part of railway infrastructure does not appear to be a selective measure.
The Court provided clarifications regarding the assessment of the selectivity of tax exemptions. In particular, the Court explained that a general and abstract tax exemption is in principle part of the normal tax system and is presumed not to confer a selective advantage. However, there are two situations in which such an exemption could be selective. The first is where it forms part of a tax system configured according to manifestly discriminatory parameters. The second is where it benefits only to a consistent category of undertakings because the conditions set by the relevant legislation for benefiting from that exemption are connected with one or more specific characteristics of those undertakings.
The Commission will carefully assess the implications of this judgement.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court, upholding the Commission’s decision of 22 December 2020 approving Polish State aid to LOT under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak.
In today’s judgment, the General Court confirmed that the Commission provided sufficient reasoning in its decision for its conclusion that the measure was compatible with the internal market, in particular since it fulfilled the conditions set out in the Temporary Framework with respect to recapitalisation measures.

The Commission takes note of the judgment by the General Court upholding a 2021 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission found that Bank of America, Natixis, Nomura, RBS (now NatWest), UBS, UniCredit and WestLB (now Portigon) breached EU antitrust rules through the participation of a group of traders in a cartel in the primary and secondary market for European Government Bonds (‘EGB').
In its judgment, the General Court found that the Commission had a legitimate interest to address the decision to all cartelists, irrespective of whether they were subject to fines. In addition, it largely upheld the amount of the fines imposed by the Commission, with the exception of those imposed on Nomura and UniCredit, which the General Court slightly reduced.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court dismissing an appeal against a 2023 Commission decision. In its 2023 decision, the Commission rejected a complaint against a number of companies active in quartz sand extraction in Belgium for alleged anticompetitive practices. In particular, the Commission found that the complaint did not involve a sufficient Union interest to justify further investigation, especially considering that the matter had already been brought to the attention of a Belgian court and that the latter appeared well placed to remedy the issues complained of.
In its judgment, the General Court confirmed, among others, that the Commission may reject complaints when, in cases with a predominantly national dimension, national courts are well placed to address the issues concerned.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court which dismissed the claim for damages of Rems Kargins against the Commission, concerning allegedly unlawful interference in national judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court of Latvia.
The General Court confirmed that the Commission’s submission of written observations to the Supreme Court was in line with the respective procedural rules, according to which the Commission is allowed to intervene, on its own initiative, in national court proceedings. The General Court confirmed that such interventions of the Commission are not binding on national courts, and that they pay particular attention to respect the independence of national courts. Consequently, the General Court denied liability of the Commission for any alleged damages the applicant suffered in the context of the resolution of former Latvian bank Parex. It also found that the legal mechanism for the Commission to submit written observations in national court proceedings does not constitute a violation of primary EU law, such as the principle of separation of powers between executive and judiciary.

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice confirming that a public contribution, granted to compensate an undertaking for the closure of a production site, constitutes State aid, provided that it is established, first, that the same undertaking would not have been able to obtain the same advantage in circumstances corresponding to the normal conditions of the market concerned and, second, that there is effective competition on that market.
In particular, the Court of Justice has confirmed that such a public contribution seems to confer an advantage on the beneficiary undertaking by mitigating costs (i.e. the costs for the cessation of the economic activity) that under normal market conditions are included in the budget of any undertaking.

The Commission takes note of the Judgment of the General Court upholding a 2022 Com-mission's decision, not to raise objections to a Spanish and Portuguese measure aiming to reduce electricity wholesale prices in the Iberian market.
In its Judgment, the General Court held that the Commission was right in finding that there was no serious doubts that the measure was compatible with EU State aid rules and EU En-ergy law. In essence, the General Court held that the Commission did not commit an error by not taking the applicants’ specific position on the electricity market into account. The General Court held that there was no discrimination and that the Commission was correct in finding the measure proportionate.

The Commission takes note of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU which The judgment clarifies that the Council Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports does not exclude the application of EU competition law’s prohibition of abusive conduct in situations where the airport provider refuses access to the airport infrastructure necessary for the provision of ground handling services at EU airports.
In particular, the Court confirmed that the mere existence of sectoral rules in no way means that the conduct in question is exempted from the competition rules laid down by the Treaties, irrespective of whether or not those sectoral rules are applicable to that conduct.