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

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

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

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
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more