The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court, which annuls a State aid Commission decision of 3 June 2021.
In its decision, the Commission approved, under EU State aid rules, the prolongation and modification of an existing German scheme to support the production of electricity from new, modernised and retrofitted highly efficient cogeneration (‘CHP') plants. In particular, the Commission found that the scheme involved the use of State resources and thus constituted State aid.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying the obligation for Member States under Regulation 1370/2007 to define in advance, in an objective and transparent manner, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation granted to the public service operator is to be calculated.

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which clarifies that a regulation of a lawyers’ professional association setting minimum amounts of lawyers’ fees is a restriction of competition by object in the meaning of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) and as such cannot fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU as objectively justified under the Wouters doctrine.
The Court also clarifies that a national court would be obliged to disapply national legislation that makes such a regulation mandatory. In this context, the Court recalled that although Article 101 TFEU concerns only the conduct of undertakings, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, it also requires Member States not to adopt or maintain in force measures capable of affecting the effectiveness of competition rules.
The Court further clarified that the national court is obliged to disapply such national legislation, even where the minimum amounts provided for by that regulation reflect actual market prices for lawyers’ services.

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which clarifies that the resolutions of the Lithuanian Chamber of Notaries in relation to the determination of notaries’ fees fall within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).
In addition, the Court also found that the resolutions of the Chamber lead to the horizontal fixing of prices of the notarial services concerned and they thus constitute “by object” restrictions within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, which can only be exempted under the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) TFEU.
In particular, considering the liability of the decision-making body of the Chamber of Notaries, the Presidium, the Court held that Article 101(1) TFEU cannot be interpreted as allowing the members of this decision-making body to be held liable where they could not be established as joint perpetrators of the infringement.
Finally, the Court clarified that Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003, which applies only to the powers of the Commission, could also be relevant for determining the powers of national competition authorities in regard to the imposition of fines.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissing an appeal against the 2022 judgment by the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court had upheld a 2020 Commission State aid decision finding that a €36.7 million rescue aid for the Romanian airline TAROM was in line with EU State aid rules.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU finding that certain rules and conduct of FIFA and UEFA regarding the prior approval of new football competitions and restrictions concerning the exclusive marketing of the rights for competitions organised by FIFA and UEFA are incompatible with EU competition law and the freedom to provide services.
The Court of Justice rules that the set of rules invoked by FIFA and UEFA to prevent a new independent football competition called ‘European Super League’ lacked the necessary framework to ensure that they are transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate. It also clarifies that Article 165 TFEU cannot be regarded as exempting sport from all or some of the other provisions of primary EU law such as competition law and freedom of movement provisions.
The Court of Justice establishes that the power of a sports federation such as FIFA or UEFA, holding a dominant position, to determine the conditions for access to the market by applying certain rules and related sanctions in an arbitrary manner, without a framework of substantive criteria which are transparent, clear and precise, may infringe competition law. In particular, such rules and sanctions may, by their very nature, infringe Article 102 TFEU and constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. The same applies to restrictions concerning the exclusive marketing of the rights related to the competitions organised by FIFA and UEFA itself.
Under those circumstances, the Court of Justice considers that the system of prior authorisation for new football competitions could not be regarded as inherent in, and proportionate for, achieving legitimate objectives related to questions of interest solely to sport, in particular the open, meritocratic nature of the competitions concerned, and ensuring a certain form of ‘solidarity redistribution’ within football.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice in which it clarifies the scope of the obligations that competent authorities must respect when they compensate SGEI providers in the sector of land transport.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU relating to the so-called ‘home-grown player’ rules (‘HGP’ rules) of the Union of European Football Associations (‘UEFA’) and the Royal Belgian Football Association (‘URBSFA’).
The Court confirms that the HGP rules could be contrary to EU law. These rules require football clubs that participate in their competitions to list a mandatory number of players trained by the club or in the national football association to which the club belongs.
The Court clarifies the relevant assessment framework under EU law and leaves it to the referring national court to make the final assessment on whether the HGP rules would constitute a restriction of competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU and/or a restriction on the free movement of football players prohibited by Article 45 TFEU.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the European Court of Justice that dismisses the appeal of the International Skating Union (ISU) against the General Court’s judgment upholding the Decision of the Commission of 8 December 2017. In its Decision the Commission found that the International Skating Union’s (ISU) Eligibility Rules restricted competition, as they limited athletes’ commercial freedom to participate in international speed skating events by organisers other than the ISU and its members and prevented potential competitors from organising and commercially exploiting such events.
The Court of Justice confirmed that the organisation of sporting competitions constitutes an economic activity that must comply with competition rules. Sports federations may adopt and ensure compliance with rules relating to the organisation of competitions, provided that such rules are transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate. Otherwise, such rules may exclude competitors and restrict the organisation of new competitions, preventing athletes from participating in those competitions and audiences from watching them.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice dismissing UPS’s claims for damages, thereby confirming the Commission’s position. The Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the General Court that UPS had failed to show liability in damages on the part of the European Union. In particular, UPS did not establish causation between the breach of its procedural rights related to the non-communication of the econometric model during the administrative procedure (see Case C-265/17P) and the damages allegedly suffered.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court which upheld the 2019 Commission's decision approving, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of Innogy by E.ON.
In its judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s assessment. Notably, the General Court considered that the applicants did not demonstrate that the Commission would have made a manifest error of judgement with respect to the product and geographic market definitions, or with respect to the competitive assessment.
Furthermore, the General Court found that the analytical framework applied by the Commission was sufficiently and adequately explained.
The General Court confirmed that the Commission respected all procedural rights of the appellants.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today's judgment of the General Court largely upholding but partially annulling a 2020 State aid Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission concluded that Italy granted selective tax advantages to the Italian port authorities by exempting them from corporate tax when performing economic activities.
Today's judgment of the General Court gives guidance on the application of State aid rules in the area of taxation of port authorities’ economic activities. In particular, the General Court confirms the Commission’s position that Italy needed to align its corporate taxation of port authorities with the rules applicable to other companies performing economic activities. Today’s judgment is in that regard in line with previous judgments in the Dutch, French, Belgian and Spanish ports cases.
The General Court however partially annuls the decision to the extent the Commission failed to demonstrate that when Italian port authorities award authorizations for certain port activities carried out by private operators, such authorisations qualified as economic activities.
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 damages claim by Banca Popolare di Bari, the buyer of Banca Tercas, in relation to the 2015 Commission State aid decision concerning measures in favour of Banca Tercas.
The General Court rejected the claim for damages as it found that the conditions relating to the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law and the existence of a causal link between the Commission’s conduct and any damage allegedly suffered by the applicant were not met.
The General Court affirmed that the error committed by the Commission was not alien to the normal, prudent and diligent conduct of an institution responsible for monitoring the application of competition rules. In addition, the conduct of the Commission was not the direct and decisive cause of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.
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 confirming the 2021 judgment of the General Court which annulled the Commission’s 2017 decision. In its decision, the Commission had concluded that Luxembourg had granted selective tax advantages to Amazon constituting illegal State aid.
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 annulling a 2021 judgment of the General Court upholding a State aid Commission decision of 27 November 2017. The Commission had opened a formal investigation procedure into Spain's so-called “environmental incentive”.
In its opening decision, the Commission had reached the preliminary conclusion that the environmental incentive constitutes State aid and had harboured doubts as to its compatibility under the applicable State aid rules. The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying the distinction between the role of the Commission and the national court in the treatment of illegal aid, as further elaborated in the notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts.

We take note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice, annulling a 2018 Commission decision. The Commission decision concerned tax rulings by Luxembourg, which allowed two Engie group companies to avoid paying taxes on almost all their profits for about a decade (between 2008 and 2018). Engie was given selective advantages that the Commission found illegal and incompatible under EU State aid rules.
We 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 judgments of the General Court dismissing as inadmissible UNO and Asempre’s applications for annulment against a Commission State aid Decision of 14 May 2020. In its decision, the Commission found that the compensation in favour of Correos for carrying out the Universal Service Obligation (“USO”) during the period of 2011-2020 complied with EU State aid rules.
In its judgments, the General Court finds that UNO and Asempre do not have legal standing and have not established that their interests as associations are individually affected by the contested decision.
The Court also held that the applicants have not put forward any evidence concerning an impact due to the contested decision on their members, considered individually. The Court considered that the applicants did not demonstrate a causal link between the aid granted to Correos and the evolution in the market shares of their members in the postal sector in Spain.
As regards UNO, the Court additionally found that it failed to demonstrate that any of its members was in competition with Correos for the specific services involved in carrying out the universal service obligation.
See also judgment in case T-514/20.

The Commission takes note of today's judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, confirming two judgments of the General Court of 17 February 2021. In its judgements, the General Court upheld two 2020 Commission State aid decisions, concerning, respectively, a Swedish aid scheme and a French aid scheme.
- In the first decision, the Commission approved, under EU State aid rules, aid of approximately €455 million in the form of a State guarantee on loans. The aid ensured that airlines, which hold a licence issued by Sweden and which are important to secure connectivity in Sweden, had sufficient liquidity despite the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The scheme was approved under the COVID Temporary Framework (TF), in line with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
- In its second decision, the Commission approved, under EU State aid rules, aid of approximately €30 million in the form of payment deferrals of taxes. The aid aimed to compensate the beneficiaries for the damage suffered due to the coronavirus pandemic and the related governmental restrictions. The scheme was approved under the COVID TF, in line with Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.
In today’s judgements, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court judgments finding that the Commission was right to conclude that the Swedish scheme complied with the relevant conditions set out in section 3.2 of the COVID TF, and was therefore compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Court of Justice also conclude that the French scheme met all conditions set out in Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and was therefore compatible with the internal market.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissing Ryanair’s appeal against a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court rejected Ryanair’s application for annulment of a 2016 State aid Commission decision.
In its decision, the Commission found that several agreements concluded between Klagenfurt airport and Ryanair were incompatible with the internal market.