Articles

National judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments in order to prevent illegal State aid

National judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments in order to prevent illegal State aid

National judges must in certain circumstances set aside final judgments in order to prevent illegal State aid

01.12.2015 NL law

On 11 November 2015, the Court of Justice ruled that national judges should, in certain circumstances, depart from a final judgment in order to prevent the granting of illegal State aid. This means that the national rules that oblige judges to respect the final decision reached in earlier proceedings between the same parties (also known as res judicata), cannot provide absolute certainty to parties that conduct business with EU Member State entities.

Facts

The case concerned wood supply agreements between the Klausner Group and the German Forestry Administration of the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ("Land"). The Land decided to rescind the contracts in 2009 after issues arose between the parties. The Klausner Group sued the Land, and in 2012 ultimately won a declaratory judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm ruling that the supply agreements should remain in force. This judgment became final.

In a subsequent set of proceedings the Klausner Group sought damages from the Land. The Land, in its turn, argued that EU law would preclude the execution of the wood supply contracts because they would amount to illegal State aid. In this case, the Court sided with the Land and found that the contracts would indeed amount to State aid. However, the Court considered that it could not rule against the final judgment of the Higher Court. Within this context, the Court requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on how to solve this conflict between legal norms.

The Court of Justice judgment

The Court of Justice emphasized that national judges should interpret national law in conformity with EU law. This means that rules of national law must not be framed in a way that makes it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness).

Subsequently, the Court of Justice considered: "[…] that both the State authorities and the recipients of State aid would be able to circumvent the prohibition laid down in the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU by obtaining, without relying on EU law on State aid, a declaratory judgment whose effect would enable them, definitively, to continue to implement the aid in question over a number of years."

The judgment thus concludes that the principle of res judicata, in this case, given that the final judgment did not examine the conformity of the contracts with State aid rules, is contrary to the principle of effectiveness as it would prevent national courts from applying the State aid rules.

Conclusion

Although the supremacy of EU law as such is not new, this ruling shows that it remains a topic to be considered in national proceedings. As a consequence of this ruling it is clear that a final judgment (that does not explicitly concern legal issues relating to State aid) does not provide undertakings with full legal certainty. This is relevant since State aid rules are often invoked by the government. Parties that conclude contracts with government entities should be aware of this development, and consider developing contractual provisions that serve to protect them in case the State aid rules are raised.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more