Short Reads

Judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments at a national level in order to prevent illegal State aid

Judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments at a national level in order to prevent illegal State aid

Judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments at a national level in order to prevent illegal State aid

08.12.2015 NL law

On 11 November 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ“) ruled in case C-505/14 (Klausner Holz) that national judges should, in certain circumstances, set aside a final judgment establishing the validity of a contract if the enforcement of the contract amounts to illegal State aid. 

In particular, the ECJ held that if the final judgment did not address any of the State aid characteristics and was left intact this would undermine European law because it prevents a finding of State aid. This recent ruling means that obtaining a final judgment (also known as res judicata or as gezag van gewijsde in the Netherlands) is not always conclusive for parties conducting business with government entities.

Facts

The Forestry Administration of the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (“FAL“) entered into an agreement to sell fixed quantities of wood to Klausner Holz Group between 2007 and 2014. The FAL agreed to refrain from selling at prices lower than those set out in the agreement, which was also supplemented by a framework sales contract (“contracts“).

Shortly after the agreement was implemented, difficulties arose between the parties. The FAL supplied wood to Klausner Holz between 2007 and 2008, but it failed to supply the amount of wood in accordance with the contracts. Klausner Holz experienced financial difficulties in 2008, which resulted in occasional late payments. Eventually, in 2009, the FAL rescinded the contracts and stopped supplying wood. Klausner Holz issued proceedings in which a declaratory judgment was made, ruling that the contracts should remain in force. After an unsuccessful appeal by the FAL, this judgment became final.

Klausner Holz then issued further proceedings, seeking damages in the sum of EUR 54 million and an order for the FAL to adhere to its contractual obligation to supply wood. Ultimately, however, the Court agreed with FAL’s argument that enforcement of the contracts would amount to State aid. As the principle ofres judicata under German law prevents a departure from the judgment reached in the first proceedings, the Court requested a preliminary ruling from the ECJ on how to solve the conflict between the principle of res judicata and requirements to prevent the implementation of illegal State aid.

The judgment of the ECJ

First, the ECJ reiterated settled case law that obliges Member States to refrain from implementing measures that may amount to illegal State aid until the European Commission has issued a final decision on the compatibility of the aid with the internal market ( “standstill obligation“), to which national judges are bound.

Secondly, the ECJ pointed out that the first German judgment (i) did not concern whether enforcement of the contracts qualified as State aid, and (ii) was primarily aimed at assessing whether the contracts remained in force, despite the fact the FAL had rescinded them. The ECJ also emphasized that national judges should interpret national law in conformity with European law. The ECJ however acknowledged that interpretation of national law is subject to certain limitations and cannot be used in a way that contradicts its core meaning. The referring Court maintained that German law prevented it from overruling a final (national) judgment despite its possible contradiction with European law.

According to the ECJ, national judges should take into account the principle of effectiveness, which ensures the effective application of European law. Given the circumstances in the case, the judgment concluded that the principle of res judicata was contrary to the principle of effectiveness. As a consequence, the referring Court was bound to apply the State aid rules, which prohibited the enforcement of the contracts.

It is important to note that in other situations the ECJ has ruled that European law does not always require judges to set aside final judgments at a national level. For example, the case of C-69/14 (Târșia) established that European law does not require a revision of the final judgment if it is found to be incompatible with an interpretation of European law upheld by the ECJ after the date on which the judgment became final.

Conclusion   

This preliminary ruling illustrates how government entities can avoid contractual obligations by invoking State aid rules. If the final judgment does not explicitly address State aid, it cannot provide full legal certainty for the parties because this may be a reason to depart from the judgment at a later stage. This is relevant since State aid rules are often invoked by the government. Only a few months ago, for instance, the District Court of North Holland ruled that the sale of land by a private party to a municipality constituted State aid. The municipality had issued the proceedings with the purpose of seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale amounted to State aid.

In light of this development, parties concluding contracts with government entities should consider protecting themselves by including contractual provisions in case State aid rules are raised. Depending on the circumstances it is for example advisable to include a provision in the contract that obliges the government entity to notify the European Commission so it can assess whether the State aid is compatible with the internal market to help ensure enforcement of the contract.

We will review this preliminary ruling for the Gemeentestem, a Dutch legal journal.

The post ‘Judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments at a national level in order to prevent illegal State aid’ is a post of Stibbeblog.

Team

Related news

21.02.2020 NL law
Bankgarantie, ongerechtvaardigde verrijking en faillissement

Articles - Gertjan Boekraad schreef een annotatie bij een uitspraak van de rechtbank Midden-Nederland van 4 oktober 2019 over een schuldeiser die voor een failliet bedrijf een bankgarantie heeft doen stellen en voor de daaruit voortvloeiende vordering uit ongerechtvaardigde verrijking in verzet komt tegen de uitdelingslijst.  

Read more

12.02.2020 NL law
Omgevingsrecht en mobiliteit: hoe werkt het afwijken van parkeernormen in bestemmingsplannen?

Short Reads - Op grond van artikel 3.1.2, tweede lid, Bro kan een bestemmingsplan ten behoeve van een goede ruimtelijke ordening regels bevatten waarvan de uitleg bij de uitoefening van een daarbij aangegeven bevoegdheid afhankelijk wordt gesteld van beleidsregels. Van deze mogelijkheid maken gemeenteraden in hun bestemmingsplannen vaak gebruik als het gaat om parkeernormen

Read more

12.02.2020 NL law
Van inspraakverordening naar participatieverordening op decentraal niveau

Short Reads - De regering stelt voor om de reikwijdte van de decentrale inspraakverordeningen te vergroten naar de uitvoering en evaluatie van decentraal beleid. Dat staat in een conceptwetsvoorstel dat op 9 december 2019 ter internetconsultatie is voorgelegd. Het conceptwetsvoorstel beoogt een wijziging van onder meer de Gemeentewet, de Provinciewet en de Waterschapswet.

Read more

12.02.2020 NL law
Het oproepen en horen van getuigen in het bestuursrecht: hoe zit het ook al weer?

Short Reads - Het oproepen van getuigen en het horen daarvan ter zitting door de bestuursrechter heeft de Hoge Raad in zijn arrest van 15 november 2019 overzichtelijk in kaart gebracht. Dat arrest, dat door de belastingkamer in een bestuurlijke boetezaak is gewezen, is ook voor andere terreinen van het bestuursrecht van belang. Mede ook omdat het horen van getuigen buiten het fiscale bestuursrecht nog in de kinderschoenen staat. In dit bericht bespreken we daarom de mogelijkheden die er bestaan om getuigen te (laten) oproepen en hoe de bestuursrechter daarmee moet omgaan.

Read more

12.02.2020 EU law
Dutch court rules that investors suffer investment loss in the market where securities are listed and traded

Short Reads - On 29 January 2020, the Rotterdam District Court ruled on the question of which laws are applicable to the tort claims brought by (former) Petrobras investors against Petrobras (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:614). The Court applied the main rule of EU Regulation Rome II (the “Rome II Regulation”), which stipulates that the law applicable to claims in tort is the law of the country in which the harm suffered by the victim as a result of the tort occurs.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring