Electrabel and Dunamenti Eromu v Commission (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-357/14 (01 October 2015)

Electrabel and Dunamenti Eromu v Commission (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-357/14 (01 October 2015)

The Court held that Electrabel's appeal was inadmissible as it was not a party at first instance. The General Court did not err in classifying the PPA as new aid based on the assumption of State aid, nor in identifying the date of accession as the relevant date for assessment. The PPA conferred an advantage to Dunamenti Erőmű after accession, and privatisation did not extinguish the advantage since the company retained its legal personality and continued to benefit from the aid. The General Court erred in dismissing arguments about repayment via privatisation solely on the timing, but this did not affect the outcome as the advantage persisted post-accession.

Citation
[2015] EUECJ C-357/14
Parties
Appellant: Electrabel SA; Appellant: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt.; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
01 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From General Court to Court of Justice of the European Union
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for Electrabel and unfounded for Dunamenti Erőmű; judgment of the General Court upheld.
Legal Topics
State Aid Classification, Existing Vs New Aid, Private Investor Test, Recovery of Unlawful Aid, Effect of EU Accession on State Measures
European Union Law Competition Law State Aid State Aid Classification Existing Vs New Aid Private Investor Test Recovery of Unlawful Aid Effect of EU Accession on State Measures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electrabel SA

Appellant

Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt.

Appellant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From General Court to Court of Justice of the European Union

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in classifying the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) as new aid under EU law
  2. 2 Whether the relevant date for assessing State aid is the date of Hungary's accession to the EU
  3. 3 Whether the PPA conferred an advantage constituting State aid after accession

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Electrabel's appeal was inadmissible as it was not a party at first instance. The General Court did not err in classifying the PPA as new aid based on the assumption of State aid, nor in identifying the date of accession as the relevant date for assessment. The PPA conferred an advantage to Dunamenti Erőmű after accession, and privatisation did not extinguish the advantage since the company retained its legal personality and continued to benefit from the aid. The General Court erred in dismissing arguments about repayment via privatisation solely on the timing, but this did not affect the outcome as the advantage persisted post-accession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for Electrabel and unfounded for Dunamenti Erőmű; judgment of the General Court upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal by Electrabel declared inadmissible.
  • Appeal by Dunamenti Erőmű dismissed.