• The Commission welcomes the judgment of the Court of Justice upholding the Commission's appeal on its major grounds and referring the case back to the general court. • The Court finds that the General Court was wrong to conclude that the presumption that an EPIC derives an advantage from its status in its relations with banks and financial institutions can be rebutted merely by looking at the past. • The Court also finds that the General Court was wrong to hold that the presumption of an advantage arising from un unlimited state guarantee can never be extended to relations with customers and suppliers. • This judgment confirms the importance and scope of the presumptions of the judgment in the la Poste Case. • The General Court must now reassess the case in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice.

• The Commission welcomes the judgment of the General Court confirming its assessment of one of the six aid measures covered by its decision of 20 January 2016, that were granted by Belgium to companies of the Duferco group. • This judgment follows another judgment of the General Court on 28 November 2017 similarly upholding the Commission findings on another illegal aid granted by Belgium to Duferco. • The judgment finds that Belgium granted an advantage to Duferco Long Products as the "Foreign Strategic Investment Fund", a subsidiary of SOGEPA owned by the Wallon region, did not comply with the market economy investor principle when investing into Duferco Long Products: the General Court finds that the Commission correctly assessed the insufficient nature of the studies provided by the Belgian authorities that mostly relied on non-audited, internal documents from Duferco, some of which were even not dated; no private investor would have made such an investment decision on that basis. In addition, the General Court rejected as irrelevant the claim based on the pari passu nature of the transaction, and rejected as unfounded other claims on insufficient reasoning of the Decision, on an alleged breach of the principle of good administration and on alternative methods for assessing the conformity with the market economy investor principle.

The Commission takes note of the Court’s decision in the preliminary ruling concerning Georgsmarienhütte, which clarifies the situations in which such a request for a preliminary ruling can be found inadmissible. In particular, the Court clarified that a beneficiary subject to recovery of incompatible State aid, having the legal standing to appeal the relevant Commission decision but having failed to do so, cannot circumvent the procedural requirements linked to the appeal by questioning the validity of the decision only in front of national court.

The Commission welcomes the judgement of the Court which annuls the judgment of the General Court concerning the Spanish Tax Lease scheme. Today's judgment reinstates the Commission’s decision of July 2013 concerning the Spanish Tax lease System, and refers the case back to the General Court for re-assessment because the General Court examined only some of the pleas in its assessment.

The Commission welcomes today's judgment of the European Court of Justice rejecting the appeal by Telekomunikacja Polska (now Orange Polska) against a General Court judgment that upheld a June 2011 Commission decision finding that Telekomunikacja Polska had abused a dominant market position. Today’s judgment supports the Commission's determination to ensure that dominant telecom operators do not engage in anticompetitive behaviours likely to hinder competitors and, ultimately, consumers and businesses. In particular, the Court confirmed that when the Commission determines a fine for an antitrust violation, it does not need to take into account anticompetitive effects, actual or likely, when calculating the amount of the fine.

The Commission welcomes the courts judgment in this case, as the general court confirmed the existence and scope of the infringement that was established in the Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 of 27.11.2013 in Case AT.39963 – Shrimps. At the same time the fine is annulled for Stührk, but it remains fully intact for the other addressees that have not contested it in Court or that have already seen their application for annulment rejected in Court (See Judgment of 08.09.2016 in Case T-54/14, Goldfish v. Commission).

The Commission welcomes the judgment of the General Court, which upholds the Commission's assessment as regards the existence and compatibility of State aid in the UK nuclear project. This judgment of the General Court has confirmed the Commission's view that the rules of the EU on State aid are applicable to measures relating to nuclear energy. The General Court also acknowledges that the Euratom Treaty [in particular its Article 2(c)] can serve as a common objective to be pursued by a Member State. The Court also confirmed the Commission's assessment regarding the necessity of the aid granted by the UK, given the lack of market-based financial instruments and other types of contracts that could hedge against the substantial risks to build a nuclear power plant in the UK.

The Commission welcomes the 15 judgments from the General Court in the Power Cables cartel case. In today's judgements, the General Court dismisses all actions brought by the participants to the cartel in their entirety. The fines of over €300 million which the Commission had imposed on the main European and Asian producers of (extra) high voltage power cables for their participation in a worldwide cartel have been fully confirmed. The Commission welcomes in particular those judgements which approve the practice of continued inspections on Commission premises. The Commission also welcomes the judgments of the General Court which treat institutional investors like other corporate parents, by attributing parental liability to them in the same way.

CURIA website to retrieve the cases

The Commission welcomes the judgments by the General Court, which upholds its findings that certain subsidies granted by Italy to local bus operators Buonotourist and CSTP in the Campania region gave those companies an unfair advantage over competitors, in breach of EU State aid rules. Public financing of services of general economic interest is perfectly fine under EU law, as far as it compensates companies that have been entrusted with public service obligations for a genuine additional burden linked to the delivery of these services. However, the parameters for calculating the level of compensation must be established in advance, in an objective and transparent manner. This was not the case for the compensation in question, which was requested and fixed several years after the services had been rendered and did not correspond to any identifiable additional burden linked to those services.

Case T-185/15 Buonotourist
Case T-186/15 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità

The Commission welcomes the judgment by the General Court, which confirms the Commission's decision of 23 June 2010 on the fines imposed on Keramag and Sanitec. The General Court has reassessed the evidence in light of the clarifications of the Court of Justice in its judgment of 26 January 2017, and has concluded that the evidence presented in the Commission's decision provides sufficient proof of a cartel in France. Consequently, the General Court has reversed its annulment of the relevant part of the Commission decision in its judgment of 16 September 2013.
Case T-379/10 RENV Keramag and others
Case T-381/10 RENV Sanitec Europe

The Commission takes note of today's judgments by the Court of Justice annulling the General Court's judgments of 4 February 2016 and the Commission's decision of 26 January 2011 on the German scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in case of restructuring of companies in difficulty ("Sanierungsklausel"). The Commission will study the judgments carefully before deciding on possible next steps.
C-203/16 P, Andres (faillite Heitkamp BauHolding)
C-208/16 P
C-209/16 P
C-219/16 P