Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:78
Date: 2016-02-04
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 October 2016 1. State aid — Concept — Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries — National legislation which merely prevents charges which, in a normal situation, would not exist — Precluded — Conditions (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 2. State aid — Concept — Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries — Objectives pursue by the State — Irrelevant (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 3. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Ad hoc measure concerning a single undertaking — Included — Need to compare the beneficiary with other operators in a comparable factual and legal situation having regard to the objective pursued by the measure — None (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 4. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 1. National legislation which offers an advantage neither to shareholders of a company nor to the company itself, in so far as it merely prevents its budget being burdened with a charge which, in a normal situation, would not have existed and therefore simply regulates an exceptional right without seeking to reduce a charge which that company would normally have had to bear cannot be regarded as an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, that rule is applicable only in cases involving dual derogation arrangements, that is to say arrangements whereby, in order to prevent the budget of the beneficiary of the measure being burdened with a charge which, in a normal situation, would not have existed, provision is made for a derogation intended to neutralise a previous derogation from the general system in place. (see paras 25, 27) 2. Article 107(1) TFEU does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or their aims but defines them in relation to their effects. (see para. 38) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 53, 54) 4. In order to classify a national measure as State aid, the Commission is required, not to establish that aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether the aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition. In that regard, the fact that an economic sector has been the subject of liberalisation at EU level may serve to determine that the aid in question has a real or potential effect on competition and affects trade between Member States. With regard to the requirement that competition should be distorted, in principle, aid intended to release an undertaking from costs which it would normally have to bear in its day-to-day management or normal activities distorts the conditions of competition. (see paras 64-66)