The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which sets aside a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court had considered that Lufthansa’s application for annulment of a 2017 State aid Commission decision approving €25.3 million in operating aid to Frankfurt-Hahn Airport was admissible, because Lufthansa qualified as interested party within the meaning of State aid rules.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice has found that the General Court committed errors of law and failed to state reasons regarding the admissibility of Lufthansa’s action, and referred the case back to the General Court.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment.
Judgement
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court partially annulling a 2020 Commission’s State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission had found that a capital injection from PostNord Group AB in favour of its subsidiary PostNord Logistics did not constitute State aid under EU State aid rules.
In its decision, the Commission had also found that the alleged cross subsidisation between PostNord Logistics and Post Danmark, the Danish universal postal service provider, did not constitute State aid under EU State aid rules. The General Court dismissed the action of the applicants insofar as the alleged cross-subsidization is concerned.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissing two appeals against the 2021 judgments of the General Court, which fully upheld a 2018 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission imposed a total fine of €254 million on nine producers of capacitors for participating in a cartel.
See also Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissing two appeals against a 2021 order of the General Court. In its order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible actions for annulment of the Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme post-2021 (‘ETS State aid Guidelines'), in particular its Annex I which lists those sectors that are most at risk of carbon leakage due to high indirect emission costs and to their strong exposure to international trade and are therefore eligible for aid under the Guidelines. In particular, the General Court noted the lack of direct concern of the applicants, finding that they could only be directly affected by a Commission decision in relation to them, while further noting that a Member State may still in any case notify an aid scheme directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU where the criteria of the ETS Guidelines are not fully met.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s findings on inadmissibility. In particular, the Court of Justice found that the ETS State aid Guidelines do not constitute a challengeable measure, and that the Guidelines do not satisfy the requirement of direct concern, as the Guidelines do not have a legal effect on third parties.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In its judgment, the Court clarified that, to the extent necessary to establish an abuse of a dominant position under article 102 TFEU, a national competition authority can take into account whether the investigated conduct complies with rules other than those relating to competition law, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’). Stressing the importance of accessing and using personal data as a significant parameter of competition in the digital economy, the Court held that the incompatibility of a certain conduct with the GDPR can be an important indicator in finding whether it constitutes an abuse of a dominant position.
At the same time, a national competition authority is required to cooperate sincerely with the authorities monitoring the application of that regulation and to not depart from any decision taken by such authorities in relation to the same or a similar conduct. The competition authority, for example, must consult the authority monitoring the application of the GDPR if it has doubts about the scope of an existing decision of the latter or if similar conduct is being assessed by the latter or when it considers that certain conduct is incompatible with the GDPR, which in turn puts the consulted authority under a duty to reply within a reasonable deadline. The national competition authority remains, however, free to draw its own conclusions from the point of view of the application of competition law.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today's preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice. The Court clarifies, among others, that a vertical agreement fixing minimum resale prices may constitute a restriction of competition by object under Article 101 TFEU.
The Court stated that such agreements can be considered to restrict competition by object after having determined that the agreement presents a sufficient degree of harm to competition. This assessment is made by, taking into account the content of the agreement’s provisions, its objectives and the economic and legal context which it forms a part of. The mere fact that a vertical agreement fixing minimum resale prices may fall within the category of ‘hardcore restrictions’ for the purposes of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation cannot dispense from conducting that assessment.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissing an appeal against a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court had rejected TUIFly’s application for annulment of a 2016 State aid Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission found that two agreements between Klagenfurt airport and TUIFly (formerly Hapag Lloyd Express) were not in line with EU State aid rules and ordered Austria to recover the incompatible aid.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed the Commission’s finding that the agreements involved State aid, as they were not in line with market conditions and therefore conferred an advantage to TUIFly over its competitors, and confirmed the Commission’s finding that the aid was incompatible with the internal market.
• The European Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the General Court that upheld a 2015 Commission’s State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the public funding granted by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo to Gdynia airport amounted to incompatible State aid and ordered Poland to recover it.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court dismissed Polwax’s action for annulment against a 2020 Commission’s decision. In its decision, the Commission approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of Grupa Lotos by PKN Orlen, subject to conditions.
In its judgment, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment of the impact of the transaction on the slack wax and paraffin markets. It also confirmed that the Commission adequately stated the reasons underlying the assessment of the potential risk of input foreclosure with respect to these markets.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court upholding a 2019 Commission decision.
In its decision, the Commission found that the marketing agreements concluded between the local Association for the Promotion of Touristic and Economic Flows and Ryanair at the airport of Montpellier are illegal and incompatible under the EU State aid rules. The Commission ordered France to recover the aid in full in order to restore the situation that existed in the internal market prior to its granting.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court. In its judgement, the General Court annulled a 2020 Commission decision approving, under EU State aid rules, an Italian scheme to compensate airlines for the damage suffered due to the coronavirus outbreak and the related travel restrictions.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment 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. In its judgments, the General Court dismissed Meta’s applications against a 2020 Commission’s decisions under Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation 1/2003. In its decisions, the Commission respectively (i) requested access to information relevant for its investigation; and (ii) imposed period penalty payments on Meta to compel it to supply the requested information.
In its judgments, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment and decisions. In particular, the General Court confirmed that the decisions (i) did not go beyond the Commission’s powers under Regulation 1/2003 since the information requested was relevant and necessary to the investigation; and (ii) did not limit Meta’s rights of defence nor breach the fundamental right to privacy and the principles of proportionality and good administration. In addition, the General Court found that the Commission had adequately stated the reasons on which the decisions were based, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court dismissing a number of appeals brought against a 2019 Commission's decision. In its decision, the Commission approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of certain E.ON power generation assets by RWE.
In its judgments, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s decision. Notably, it confirmed that the Commission was correct in assessing the different parts of the asset swap as two separate concentrations. Furthermore, the General Court found that the analytical framework applied by the Commission was sufficiently and adequately explained.
See also Curia's press releases (in PDF format) for Case T-312/20 and for Case T-321/20.
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court. In its judgments, the General Court dismissed the actions for annulment against three Commission State aid decisions, which amended a 2020 Commission State aid decision. In its 2020 decision, the Commission approved a Dutch scheme to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
In its judgments, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment and decisions. In particular, it confirmed that, when assessing the compatibility of an aid measure with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the Commission is not required to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions, but only to ascertain whether the measure is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to remedy the serious disturbance in the economy of the concerned Member State.
See also judgments in Case T-289/21, as well as Case T-513/21.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court annulled a 2020 Commission’s decision approving, under the State aid COVID Temporary Framework, German plans to contribute €6 billion to the recapitalisation of Deutsche Lufthansa AG.
We will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
See also:
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court annulled a 2020 Commission’s decision approving, under the State aid COVID Temporary Framework, Danish and Swedish plans to contribute up to approximately €1 billion to the recapitalisation of SAS.
We will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
See also:
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissing Casa Regina Apostolorum’s appeal against a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its 2021 judgment, the General Court upheld a 2017 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the activities of the Italian healthcare system (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale – SSN) are not economic in nature and therefore the measures complained of by Casa Regina did not entail State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the Commission’s finding that the activities of the SSN are not economic in nature, since the SSN is based on the principle of solidarity and universal coverage and its services are offered to all citizens free of charge or subject to the payment of an amount that covers only a limited fraction of the costs. As a result, the SSN is not economic in nature and the activities performed within the context of the SSN do not entail State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal against the 2021 judgment of the General Court in this case.
In its judgement, the General Court had dismissed a claim for damages brought against the Commission by certain shareholders and subordinated bondholders of Banca delle Marche.
The Court declared inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling from the Italian Council of State. Among other reasons, the judgment estates that the referring court provided no reference to the constituent elements of a dominant position for the purposes of Article 102 TFEU in the context of the main proceedings
The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Repsol case (Case C-25/21).
The case was referred from a Spanish court for a preliminary ruling on how decisions issued by national competition authorities, finding some of the applicant’s supply contracts illegal, are binding on national courts.