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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring