# C_2014093EN.01001902.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

(Case C-667/13)

2014/C 93/31

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portuguese State

Applicant:

Defendant: Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the Decision (1) vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons on the ground that:






  (a) | it failed to state the reason why the guarantee provided by the Portuguese State affects trade between Member States? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the Decision (1) vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons on the ground that:

1

(a)

it failed to state the reason why the guarantee provided by the Portuguese State affects trade between Member States?

| (b) | it failed to specify the reason why the aid granted in the form of a guarantee, which was initially considered to be covered by Article 107(3) TFEU, was then declared to be incompatible with the common market? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

it failed to specify the reason why the aid granted in the form of a guarantee, which was initially considered to be covered by Article 107(3) TFEU, was then declared to be incompatible with the common market?

| 2. | Is the Decision vitiated by a contradiction between its statement of reasons and its enacting terms as to the date from which the [aid] is to be considered unlawful: 5 December 2008 or 5 June 2009? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Decision vitiated by a contradiction between its statement of reasons and its enacting terms as to the date from which the [aid] is to be considered unlawful: 5 December 2008 or 5 June 2009?

| 3. | Does the Decision infringe Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as the aid granted did not affect trade between Member States, particularly in view of the purpose of the loan and the actual use made of it and the fact that the beneficiary has not carried out its activities since 1 December 2008? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Decision infringe Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as the aid granted did not affect trade between Member States, particularly in view of the purpose of the loan and the actual use made of it and the fact that the beneficiary has not carried out its activities since 1 December 2008?

| 4. | Does the decision infringe Article 107(3) TFEU, insofar as the aid was intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and, as such, is compatible with the common market? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the decision infringe Article 107(3) TFEU, insofar as the aid was intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and, as such, is compatible with the common market?

| 5. | Do paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2) preclude, in this specific case, a reduction in the amount to be recovered, when that provision is applicable, without discrimination, to all creditors of the insolvent company? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2) preclude, in this specific case, a reduction in the amount to be recovered, when that provision is applicable, without discrimination, to all creditors of the insolvent company?

2

---

(1)  2011/346/EU: Commission Decision of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C-33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (notified under document C(2010) 4932) — OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty — OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

2

---