Short Reads

General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

01.07.2016 NL law

On 26 May 2016, the General Court ("GC") annulled a decision of the European Commission concerning an implicit and unlimited guarantee granted by the French government to the French Petroleum Institute ("FPI"). The French government and the FPI alleged that the FPI did not benefit from the guarantee and therefore the guarantee did not qualify as State aid.

 

The FPI was governed by private law until it was re-established under public law status in 2006. The Commission held that the grant of that status had the effect of conferring an unlimited public guarantee on FPI's activities, as it was no longer subject to insolvency proceedings.

The Commission alleged that the FPI benefitted from this guarantee in its relationships with  suppliers and customers, qualifying the guarantee as an advantage. Furthermore, the Commission deemed this a selective advantage since the FPI's competitors, which are established under private law, are subject to insolvency proceedings. The Commission took a similar view with regard to an unlimited implied guarantee in the La Poste case.

The FPI and the French State appealed the decision, arguing that the guarantee did not qualify as State aid. The GC allowed the appeal. While it shared the Commission's view that the public undertaking status of the FPI implies an unlimited guarantee, the GC ruled that the Commission should have shown the actual effects produced by the guarantee. According to the GC,  the Commission did not prove that the FPI actually benefitted or was likely to benefit from the guarantee. In particular, the Commission did not demonstrate that the FPI’s suppliers treated or were likely to  treat it more favourably, for instance by offering lower prices or not requiring a guarantee themselves.

As a result the GC annulled the decision of the Commission. The parties may appeal to the Court of Justice against this judgment on points of law only.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel
2. General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
3. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
4. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
5. Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands
6. New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

Related news

01.10.2020 NL law
EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions

Short Reads - Competition Commissioner Vestager presented a sneak peak of her plans for the future of EU merger control on the 30th anniversary of the EU Merger Regulation. The proposed plans include a simplification of the notification procedure and a new approach towards the system of referral to ensure that significant transactions, particularly in the digital and pharmaceutical industries, no longer escape Commission scrutiny.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Cigarettes producers fined for alleged indirect info exchange

Short Reads - Enforcement of competition rules in relation to indirect information exchange seems to be catching on; while the European Commission only flagged the risks in its consumer electronics cases, the ACM has taken up the challenge and imposed fines. Four cigarettes producers were fined a total of EUR 82 million for allegedly indirectly exchanging information on the future retail prices of cigarettes through their wholesalers and other buyers. According to the ACM, the manufacturers knowingly accepted this information and used it to determine their own pricing strategies.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Waiting for the EC: third-party platform bans and RPM still on radar

Short Reads - The results of the European Commission’s evaluation of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) call for more clarity and convergence in the interpretation of certain (online) vertical restrictions. However, the Dutch competition authority (the ACM) and the Dutch courts cannot wait for the European Commission’s revised VBER rules to deal with such sales restrictions.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Directors' liability due to competition law infringements by the company

Short Reads - The District Court Noord-Nederland recently allowed the trustees in bankruptcy of Northsea shrimp trading company Heiploeg to recover part of a EUR 27 million cartel fine from a former director. Internationally, the question whether companies can recover competition law fines through civil claims against individuals involved in the competition law infringement, is controversial. The court held, however, that the director’s personal involvement in the infringement amounted to ‘serious mismanagement’, triggering personal liability to pay damages.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
What to expect when you are expecting: broader investment screening in the Netherlands

Short Reads - On 8 September 2020, a draft bill setting up an ex-ante and ex-post screening mechanism for investments in companies active in vital processes or sensitive technology in the Netherlands was published for consultation. Investments, mergers and acquisitions that took place between 2 June 2020 and the entry into force of the proposed law may also be scrutinised. The draft bill is open for consultation until 7 October 2020. Companies should beware of these new developments in relation to future, and potentially past, M&A deals.

Read more