The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU which upholds the 2022 ruling by the General Court in this case.
In 2022, the General Court had annulled a 2020 Commission State aid decision approving €52.5 million Dutch compensation to the coal fired power plant Hemweg for the early closure imposed on the plant.
The Commission will now carefully study the judgment.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union rejecting the Commission’s appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 in case T-610/19 Deutsche Telekom v Commission. In its 2022 judgment, the General Court upheld Deutsche Telekom’s appeal against a 2019 Commission decision. In its 2019 decision, the Commission rejected Deutsche Telekom’s request for payment of default interests on the excess fine amount provisionally paid by the company. This amount was consequently reimbursed by the Commission following the 2018 General Court’s judgment which reduced the amount of the fine.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and assess its implications.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which dismissed Ryanair’s appeal against a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court had rejected Ryanair’s application for annulment of the State aid decision of 31 July 2020 finding that the Spanish Recapitalisation Fund was in line with EU State aid rules set out in the COVID-19 Temporary Framework.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate errors in the judgment of the General Court and thus that its application for annulment should be rejected.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice, upholding a 2020 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission had approved a Finnish State guarantee on a €600 million loan to the airline Finnair to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the company.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice found that the General Court was correct to rule in April 2021 that the Finnish measure approved by the Commission complied with all the conditions set out in EU State aid rules, in particular under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as interpreted by the COVID-19 State aid Temporary Framework. The aid did not breach the principle of non-discrimination nor did it involve an unjustified restriction on the freedom of other companies to provide services.

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court upholding a 2013 Commission’s State aid decision. In its 2013 decision, the Commission concluded that a Spanish scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief to be partly incompatible with EU State aid rules. The Commission found that the scheme conferred a selective advantage on economic interest groupings and their investors over their competitors. It therefore ordered Spain to recover the incompatible aid.
On 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union largely upheld the Commission decision, while annulling it insofar as it only identified the economic interest groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the aid.
In today’s judgment, the General Court ruled that remaining applications for annulment against the Commission’s 2013 decision were without object as regards the question of the identification of the indirect beneficiaries of the scheme and dismissed the remainder of the actions for annulment.
The judgments also confirm that the Commission was competent to ask Spain to set aside private contractual clauses which allowed beneficiaries of the aid scheme to shift the burden of recovery to third parties.

The European Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court, which annuls the Commission’s decision of 26 July 2021, approving restructuring aid in favour of the German airline Condor. In particular, the General Court held that the Commission should have opened an in-depth investigation to ascertain whether the State would receive a reasonable share from future value gains of Condor. Furthermore, according to the General Court, the doubts that the Commission should have had necessarily affect its assessment of the scope of the measures to limit distortions of competition foreseen in its decision and that are applicable to Condor. The Commission will study the judgment carefully and reflect on possible next steps.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court upholding a 2013 Commission’s State aid decision. In its 2013 decision, the Commission concluded that a Spanish scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief to be partly incompatible with EU State aid rules. The Commission found that the scheme conferred a selective advantage on economic interest groupings and their investors over their competitors. It therefore ordered Spain to recover the incompatible aid.
On 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union largely upheld the Commission decision, while annulling it insofar as it only identified the economic interest groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the aid.
In today’s judgments, the General Court ruled that remaining applications for annulment against the Commission’s 2013 decision were without object as regards the question of the identification of the indirect beneficiaries of the scheme and dismissed the remainder of the actions for annulment.
The judgments also confirm that the Commission was competent to ask Spain to set aside private contractual clauses which allowed beneficiaries of the aid scheme to shift the burden of recovery to third parties.
See also judgments Gas Natural v Commission as well as Duro Felguera v Commission.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court upholding a 2013 Commission’s State aid decision. In its 2013 decision, the Commission concluded that a Spanish scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief to be partly incompatible with EU State aid rules. The Commission found that the scheme conferred a selective advantage on economic interest groupings and their investors over their competitors. It therefore ordered Spain to recover the incompatible aid.
On 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union largely upheld the Commission decision, while annulling it insofar as it only identified the economic interest groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the aid.
In today’s judgment, the General Court ruled that one of the remaining applications for annulment against the Commission’s 2013 decision was without object as regards the question of the identification of the indirect beneficiaries of the scheme and dismissed the remainder of the action for annulment.
The judgment also confirms that the Commission was competent to ask Spain to set aside private contractual clauses which allowed beneficiaries of the aid scheme to shift the burden of recovery to third parties.

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in the Heureka case (C 605/21). The Court ruled against limitation rules like the former Czech rules in issue, which allowed the limitation period to start running before the conduct complained of had ceased and which did not allow that period to be suspended or interrupted while the European Commission was investigating the same allegedly anti-competitive conduct.
The Commission will study with care the detail of the ruling.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court upholding a 2021 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the tax on credit institutions notified by Sweden did not constitute State aid.
In its judgment, the General Court confirmed the Commission’s finding that the risk tax was not selective and, thus, did not amount to State aid.

The Commission takes note of yesterday’s judgment of the General Court, which annuls a 2018 Commission decision which concluded that a 2013 reform of the Danish framework regulating charges for discharging waste water to a treatment plant did not constitute State aid.
The Commission will carefully study this judgment and reflect on possible next steps.

The Commission takes note of the General Court’s judgment upholding a 2013 Commission State aid decision. In its 2013 decision, the Commission concluded a Spanish scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief to be partly incompatible with EU State aid rules. The Commission found that the scheme conferred a selective advantage on economic interest groupings and their investors over their competitors. The Commission therefore ordered Spain to recover the incompatible aid.
On 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU largely upheld the Commission decision, while annulling it insofar as it only identified the economic interest groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the aid.
In today’s judgment, the General Court ruled that one of the remaining applications for annulment against the 2013 Commission decision was without object as regards the question of the identification of the indirect beneficiaries of the scheme, and dismissed the remainder of the action for annulment.
Today’s judgment also confirms that the Commission was competent to ask Spain to set aside private contractual clauses which allowed beneficiaries of the aid scheme to shift the burden of recovery to third parties.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union requested by the Italian Council of State (Consiglio di Stato) concerning the interpretation of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in connection with the implementation of a green certificates scheme set out in Italian legislation which had not been previously notified to the Commission.
In its judgment the Court clarified that the measure in question appears to be imputable to the Italian State and the advantages it confers appear to be granted indirectly through State resources.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment including to assess its implications for its case practice.

The Commission also takes note of today’s General Court judgment concerning a Commission decision of September 2018, in which the Commission found that certain measures to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg were in line with State aid rules. By decision of June 2019, the Commission withdrew the contested decision insofar as it concerned Femern A/S. In October 2021, the Court of Justice confirmed that A/S Femern Landanlæg did not receive State aid.
In today’s judgment, the General Court found that, considering the withdrawal of the contested decision, it did not need to rule on the arguments concerning measures to Femern A/S. As regards the measures in favour of Femern Landanlæg A/S, another Danish public entity, which is entrusted with the rail hinterland connections in Denmark, the General Court dismissed the action on the ground that, inter alia, Femern Landanlæg A/S does not carry out an economic activity and, therefore, cannot be regarded as a beneficiary of aid.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgments of the General Court that upheld in full a Commission decision of March 2020. In its 2020 decision, the Commission had approved Danish public financing of Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.
In particular, the General Court confirmed that Femern A/S carries out economic activity, and that financing granted to it affects trade between Member States. The General Court also confirmed that that financing is compatible with the internal market.
See also judgment in case T-390/20 as well as Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment by the Court of justice of the EU which sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the EU of 22 September 2021, DEI v Commission (T-639/14 RENV, T-352/15 and T-740/17), whereby the General Court had annulled the Commission’s decisions finding that an arbitration award setting a tariff to be paid by Mytilinaios for the electricity it bought from DEI did not involve State aid.
In the judgment, the Court of justice shared the view of the Commission that the General Court erred in law in finding that the arbitration tribunal set up voluntarily by the parties in the premises of the Greek Energy Regulator could be treated in the same way as an ordinary court and that the arbitration award issued by that tribunal was a State measure capable of constituting State aid.
The Court of justice referred the cases back to the General Court, for the General Court to deal with remaining pleas raised by DEI in its application in first instance.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court upholding a 2013 Commission’s State aid decision. In its 2013 decision, the Commission concluded that a Spanish scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief to be partly incompatible with EU State aid rules. The Commission found that the scheme conferred a selective advantage on economic interest groupings and their investors over their competitors. It therefore ordered Spain to recover the incompatible aid.
On 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union largely upheld the Commission decision, while annulling it insofar as it only identified the economic interest groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the aid.
In today’s judgment, the General Court ruled that two remaining applications for annulment against the Commission’s 2013 decision were without object as regards the question of the identification of the indirect beneficiaries of the scheme.
The judgment also confirms that the Commission was competent to ask Spain to set aside private contractual clauses which allowed beneficiaries of the aid scheme to shift the burden of recovery to third parties.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court, which annuls a Commission Decision of 16 July 2021. In the decision, the Commission re-approved, under EU State aid rules, a €3.4 billion Dutch aid measure consisting of a State guarantee on loans and a subordinated State loan to KLM to provide urgent liquidity to the company in the context of the coronavirus outbreak. This re-approval decision followed the annulment by the General Court of the initial Commission decision on the Dutch measure of July 2020.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on the possible next steps.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, fully upholding a 2017 Commission's decision. In its decision, the Commission imposed a fine on Scania for its cartel activities in the Trucks sector. Scania’s fine was imposed a year after Daimler, Volvo/Renault, Iveco and DAF were also sanctioned for the same cartel. MAN received full immunity for revealing the existence of the cartel, thereby avoiding a fine. The Commission had adopted a separate decision for Scania because, unlike the other cartel participants, the company had decided not to settle the case.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court annulling the 2020 Commission decision partially waiving the non-reacquisition clause under the commitments made by Nidec to obtain clearance of its acquisition of Embraco, Whirlpool’s refrigeration compressor business. On 16 April 2019, the Commission had approved the proposed acquisition, subject to a set of commitments.
The partial waiver concerned the non-reacquisition clause relating to a fixed speed household compressor manufacturing line (‘Delta line'), which was part of the divestment business that Nidec committed to sell under the commitments. Prior to the acquisition of Embraco, Nidec had planned to develop a variable speed compressor on the basis of the Delta line.
Upon receipt of the request from Nidec to waive the non-reacquisition clause of the commitments with regard to the Delta line, the Commission initiated a market investigation to determine whether a waiver is justified in light of the changed market conditions.
In its waiver decision, the Commission took into account that there had not been any competition concerns regarding the production of fixed speed compressors. Moreover, the Commission found that the structure of the relevant market for variable speed refrigeration compressors for household applications had changed to such an extent that the absence of influence over the concerned part of the divestment business was no longer necessary to render Nidec's acquisition of Embraco compatible with the internal market. On this basis, the Commission decided to approve Nidec's waiver request.
In today’s judgment, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision because it found that the Commission erred in law. In particular, the Court found that the Commission failed to ascertain whether change in the structure of the relevant market, which justified the waiver, was a lasting one.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.