Short Reads

General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

01.07.2016 NL law

On 26 May 2016, the General Court ("GC") annulled a decision of the European Commission concerning an implicit and unlimited guarantee granted by the French government to the French Petroleum Institute ("FPI"). The French government and the FPI alleged that the FPI did not benefit from the guarantee and therefore the guarantee did not qualify as State aid.

 

The FPI was governed by private law until it was re-established under public law status in 2006. The Commission held that the grant of that status had the effect of conferring an unlimited public guarantee on FPI's activities, as it was no longer subject to insolvency proceedings.

The Commission alleged that the FPI benefitted from this guarantee in its relationships with  suppliers and customers, qualifying the guarantee as an advantage. Furthermore, the Commission deemed this a selective advantage since the FPI's competitors, which are established under private law, are subject to insolvency proceedings. The Commission took a similar view with regard to an unlimited implied guarantee in the La Poste case.

The FPI and the French State appealed the decision, arguing that the guarantee did not qualify as State aid. The GC allowed the appeal. While it shared the Commission's view that the public undertaking status of the FPI implies an unlimited guarantee, the GC ruled that the Commission should have shown the actual effects produced by the guarantee. According to the GC,  the Commission did not prove that the FPI actually benefitted or was likely to benefit from the guarantee. In particular, the Commission did not demonstrate that the FPI’s suppliers treated or were likely to  treat it more favourably, for instance by offering lower prices or not requiring a guarantee themselves.

As a result the GC annulled the decision of the Commission. The parties may appeal to the Court of Justice against this judgment on points of law only.

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

1. Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel
2. General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
3. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
4. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
5. Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands
6. New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

Related news

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently upheld the General Court's order finding that metal production and recycling company Eco-Bat had submitted its appeal outside of the appeal term. Eco-Bat had relied on the term starting from the date of the European Commission's decision correcting figures for the fine calculation in the initial infringement decision.

Read more

12.04.2019 NL law
Hoogste Europese rechter bevestigt dat overheden onrechtmatige staatssteun proactief moeten terugvorderen

Short Reads - De maand maart 2019 zal vermoedelijk de juridisch handboeken ingaan als een historische maand voor het mededingings- en staatssteunrecht. Niet alleen deed het Hof van Justitie een baanbrekende uitspraak op het gebied van het verhaal van kartelschade. Het heeft in de uitspraak Eesti Pagar (C-349/17) van 5 maart 2019 belangrijke vragen opgehelderd over de handhaving van het staatssteunrecht op nationaal niveau.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
Fine liability in antitrust cases is closely scrutinised by Dutch courts

Short Reads - A parent company can be held liable for a subsidiary's anti-competitive conduct if the parent has exercised decisive influence over the subsidiary, because the two are then considered a single undertaking. This is why the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) recently found that the ACM cannot simply rely on managing partners' civil liability to determine fine liability for a limited partnership's anti-competitive conduct.

Read more

10.04.2019 BE law
Acrylamide: zijn frieten ook juridisch schadelijk voor de gezondheid?

Articles - De risico’s door de aanwezigheid van acrylamide in levensmiddelen noopten de EU tot het nemen van risicobeperkende maatregelen. Exploitanten van levensmiddelenbedrijven van bepaalde levensmiddelen (o.a. frieten, chips, koekjes, …) kregen de verplichting om tal van maatregelen te nemen.  De juridische kwalificatie van acrylamide en het regime van deze maatregelen worden in deze blog toegelicht.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring