Articles

District Court declared a contract partly void in order to recover illegal state aid

District Court declared a contract partly void in order to recover illegal state aid

District Court declared a contract partly void in order to recover illegal state aid

05.01.2016 NL law

On 16 December 2015, the District Court of North Holland ("District Court") declared a contract between the municipality of Harlingen and the undertaking Spaansen partly void due to illegal state aid. 

The District Court decided that only a clause related to the price, found in an earlier interlocutory ruling to have been set above the market value, was void insofar as the price was set above market value. As a consequence, Spaansen had to sell the property for a lower price than agreed upon in its contract with the municipality.

On 23 June 2009, the municipality agreed to buy Spaansen's real estate property. The agreement stipulated that Harlingen would pay (i) EUR 6.5 million after the title had been transferred and (ii) an additional EUR 2 million after the undertaking had left the premises as compensation for relocation. In an interlocutory ruling, the District Court found the sales price was EUR 2.25 million higher than the market value and that an additional compensation for the relocation of the undertaking is not permitted under state aid rules. After the interlocutory ruling, the District Court gave the parties the opportunity to give their views on how the illegal aid should be recovered. 

Spaansen argued that the price clause was not severable from the agreement, and that the entire agreement should therefore be declared void. The price was of critical importance to the agreement, and it would not have sold the property for the price excluding the amount that was considered state aid. As a consequence, the municipality should return the property and the undertaking should pay back the sales price. The municipality on the other hand, argued that only the price clause should be declared void, to the extent that the price exceeded market value.

The District Court emphasized that recovery of state aid in order to restore competitive market conditions should take place in the least inconvenient way possible. Furthermore, according to the District Court, it should be assessed whether a partial annulment can be justified taking into account all the relevant circumstances and the interests of the parties. In that light, the District Court considered that adjusting the sales price was the least burdensome option. The District Court dismissed Spaansen's argument that it would not have sold the property for the lower price. It considered that the adjusted price excluding the state aid represented market value and Spaansen would not have been able to sell the premises for a higher price under normal market conditions.

This case illustrates how far-reaching the consequences can be if an agreement is found in violation of state aid rules. The state aid rules cannot only annul, but can also alter an agreement between a government entity and an undertaking.

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

Team

Related news

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more