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

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

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