The Commission takes note of today's judgment of the General Court dismissing the action for annulment brought by Portugal against a 2020 State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the implementation of the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) in Portugal is not in line with the Commission's State aid decisions of 2007 and 2013. The objective of the approved measure was to contribute to the economic development of the outermost region of Madeira through tax incentives for companies creating jobs in Madeira and for activities effectively and materially performed in that region.
In its judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s finding that the tax reductions were applied to companies that have made no real contribution to the development of the region, including on jobs created outside Madeira (and even the EU), in breach of the conditions laid down in the 2007 and 2013 State aid decisions and EU State aid rules.
Judgement
The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court Justice and will carefully study it.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice found that a 2019 Commission State aid decision ordering the recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid granted to a Gibraltar-based company (i.e. Fossil) does not preclude the national authorities responsible for the recovery from applying a domestic provision which prescribes a mechanism for the set-off of taxes paid by a beneficiary abroad against taxes for which it is liable in Gibraltar. The final conclusion on whether the national provision at stake applies to the Fossil recovery case is to be decided by the referring court.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The European Commission takes note of today's judgment by the General Court largely confirming the Commission’s July 2018 decision which found that Google and its parent company Alphabet had abused its dominant position. The General Court also largely confirmed the fine that the European Commission imposed on Google and Alphabet and set it at € 4.125 billion.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and decide on possible next steps.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court. In its judgments, the General Court upheld a 2019 State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the equipment and capital loans that the Municipality of Helsinki granted to the bus operator Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy ("HelB") amounted to incompatible State aid and ordered Finland to recover the incompatible aid. It also found that there was economic continuity between the former HeIB and its successor.
In its judgments, the General Court upheld the Commission’s finding that the loans conferred an undue economic advantage to HeIB and that there was economic continuity between the former HeIB and its successor.
See also Judgment in Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court dismissed the appeal of JCDecaux against a 2019 State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found, among others, that aid received by JCDecaux in the form of tax and royalty exemptions amounted to incompatible State aid.
The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court clarified whether special-purpose or specialised vehicles, in particular refuse collection trucks, are covered by the cartel found in the Commission’s settlement decision of 19 July 2016. In this decision, the Commission had found that a number of truck producers had broken EU competition rules as they had colluded on truck pricing and on passing on the cost of compliance with stricter emission rules.
In its judgment, the CJEU held that all types of specialised trucks, including household refuse collection trucks, fall within the scope of the products covered by the cartel found in the Commission’s settlement decision.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission’s decisions of 19 April 2021, by which pursuant to Article 22(3) of the EU Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’), the Commission accepted the requests by France, Belgium, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Norway to examine the proposed acquisition of GRAIL by Illumina.
In its judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s assessment. In particular, it confirmed that Article 22 of the EUMR empowers Member States to request a referral of concentrations to the Commission, even in cases where the concentration is not notifiable under national merger control rules of the Member States. The judgment thus endorses the Commission’s recalibrated approach to referrals under Article 22 of the EUMR. The Commission will continue to apply its March 2021 Guidance.
As regards the Phase II investigation into the Illumina/GRAIL case, proceedings are currently suspended and will continue as soon as the clock restarts.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court annulled a 2020 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that support granted to Tartu Agro by Estonia amounted to unlawful and incompatible State aid.
We will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment by the General Court dismissing the appeal by Committee Light & Led Made in Europe and Committee Design Luce & Led Made in Italy against a 2019 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission rejected their complaint against Koninklijke Philips’ alleged anticompetitive and abusive practices on markets in the European LED lighting sector.
In the judgement, the General Court fully upheld the Commission's decision. In particular, it concluded that the Commission had not erred in deciding that there was insufficient Union interest in further investigating the issues raised in the complaint due to the limited likelihood of finding an infringement of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU and the disproportionate nature of a more in-depth investigation.
The Commission takes note of the judgment by the Court of Justice (‘CJEU’) in the context of the 2014 Hoffmann-La Roche and Novartis fining decision by the Italian Competition and Markets Authority.
The Commission takes note of the judgement by the European Court of Justice dismissing the roof windows manufacturer FAKRO’s appeal against a 2020 judgement of the General Court. In its judgement, the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action for annulment against a Commission decision of 14 June 2018 to reject an antitrust complaint filed by FAKRO.
The judgement confirms the Commission's assessment that there was no sufficient Union interest in further investigating the issues raised in the complaint due to the limited likelihood of finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and the disproportionate nature of a more in-depth investigation.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court of Justice found that the General Court had erred in law when it concluded that the complainant was not directly affected by a 2018 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the tariff system for waste water charges set up by a Danish law does not confer an advantage to certain undertakings and thus does not constitute State aid.
The Court of Justice referred the case back to the General Court that will decide on the merits.
Case C 267/20 was a request for a preliminary ruling brought by a Spanish court seeking guidance on the the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU as well as of Articles 10 and 17 and Article 22(2) of the Damages Directive. In its judgment, the Court clarified the temporal scope of application of the rules of the Damages Directive.
See also Curia's press release (in pdf format).
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court, which upheld the Commission decision of 9 June 2020 approving a recapitalisation measure in favour of Finnair. In its decision, the Commission found that the aid notified by Finland was compatible with the internal market, as it was proportionate and necessary to contribute to remedy a serious disturbance to the economy of Finland.
See also Curia's press release (in pdf format).
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission’s 2019 decision prohibiting the creation of a joint venture by Tata Steel and ThyssenKrupp under the EU Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’).
In its judgement, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment.
The General Court further found that the Commission correctly concluded that the remedies offered by the parties were insufficient to eliminate the identified significant impediments to effective competition.
See also Curia's press release (in pdf format).
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice setting aside the General Court’s judgments of 2019.
The Court of Justice largely confirms the Commission's decision of 2015 imposing fines on the optical disc drives suppliers for their cartel activities in the procurement tenders for optical disc drives for laptops and desktops produced by Dell and Hewlett Packard.
The Court of Justice confirmed that it did not identify any grounds justifying it to reduce the amount of the fines imposed on the undertakings.
See also:
The European Commission takes note of today's judgement by the General Court that annulled the Commission’s 2018 Decision which found that Qualcomm had abused its dominant position.
The Commission will carefully study the judgement and its implications and will reflect on possible next steps.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The European Commission takes note of the General Court’s judgment upholding entirely the Commission’s decision, by which it found that a certain part of the UK’s CFC legislation was unlawful and incompatible State aid.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on its wider impact.
The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘ECJ’) in relation to the decision of 20 December 2018 by the Italian Competition and Markets Authority against Enel.
The ruling clarifies certain aspects of the concept of ‘abuse’ within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. More specifically, the Court confirms the importance of assessing whether a dominant undertaking’s behaviour amounts to competition on the merits and how this should be interpreted, in particular when dominant undertakings enjoy advantages from a monopoly they previously held on a market. The Court also considers that a competition authority must show that the conduct of the dominant undertaking could adversely affect the effective competition structure on the market, without it being necessary to also show direct harm to consumers. Moreover, the Court recalls that it must be shown that the conduct is capable of producing the alleged exclusionary effects, and not that the desired result of the conduct has actually been achieved.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court dismissing Larco’s appeal against a 2014 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission found that, among others, a public guarantee granted to Larco in 2008 constituted incompatible State aid and ordered recovery of the aid.
In its judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s finding that the aid was not granted at market conditions and thus conferred an advantage to the company.