Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:854
Date: 2016-11-10
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: United Kingdom

summary publication in OJ 2005 C 172, p. 3). 12 – Orders of 24 September 2009 in SBS TV and SBS Danish Television v Commission, T‑12/05, not published, EU:T:2009:357, and in Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission, T‑16/05, not published, EU:T:2009:358. 13 – Apart from the rulings mentioned in Part I of this Opinion, reference is also made to the orders of 22 March 2012, Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission, T‑114/09, not published, EU:T:2012:144, and of 10 December 2012, Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission, T‑210/12, not published, EU:T:2012:660. 14 – Judgment of 24 September 2015, TV2/Danmark v Commission, T‑674/11, EU:T:2015:684 (‘the other judgment under appeal’). The appeals currently pending are in cases TV2/Danmark v Commission, C‑649/15 P; Commission v TV2/Danmark, C‑656/15 P, and Viasat Broadcasting UK v TV2/Danmark, C‑657/15 P. 15 – That is why the General Court held, in the judgment under appeal, that it was unnecessary to rule on part of Viasat’s action for annulment. 16 – Judgment of 1 July 2010, M6 v Commission, T‑568/08 and T‑573/08, EU:T:2010:272. 17 – Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (OJ 2001 C 320, p. 5). 18 – See Lynskey, O., ‘The Application of Article 86(2) EC to Measures Which do Not Fulfil the Altmark Criteria; Institutionalising Incoherence in the Legal Framework Governing State Compensation of Public Service Obligations’, World Competition Law and Economic Review, Kluwer Law International, 2007, Vol. 30, Issue 1, p. 157. 19 – See, to that effect, judgment of 26 October 2016, Orange v Commission, C‑211/15 P, EU:C:2016:798, paragraph 44. 20 – See, inter alia, Klasse, M., ‘The Impact of Altmark: The European Commission Case Law Responses’, in Szyzyczak, E., and van de Gronden, J.W. (eds), Financing Services of General Economic Interest, TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2013, p. 36, and Nicolaides, P., ‘The Perennial Altmark Questions’, 27 October 2015, available at http://www.stateaidhub.eu/blogs/stateaiduncovered/post/3961 (last accessed on 7 November 2016). 21 – See judgment of 21 November 2013, Deutsche Lufthansa, C‑284/12, EU:C:2013:755, paragraph 35. The duty of prior notification applies also to measures falling within the scope of Article 106(2) TFEU: see judgment of 21 October 2003, van Calster and Others, C‑261/01 and C‑262/01, EU:C:2003:571, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited. 22 – See, to that effect, judgment of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C‑279/08 P, EU:C:2011:551, paragraphs 40 to 42. 23 – See, to that effect, judgment of 15 September 2016, PGE, C‑574/14, EU:C:2016:686, paragraphs 31, 33 and 40 and the case-law cited. 24 – See, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2013, Deutsche Lufthansa, C‑284/12, EU:C:2013:755, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited. 25 – See, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 1994, Banco Exterior de España, C‑387/92, EU:C:1994:100, paragraph 17. 26 – Concurring, see the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C‑280/00, EU:C:2003:13, point 56. For a different view, see the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Ferring, C‑53/00, EU:C:2001:253, point 78. 27 – See, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2013, Deutsche Lufthansa, C‑284/12, EU:C:2013:755, paragraph 26. 28 – To that effect, see order of 5 February 2015, Greece v Commission, C‑296/14 P, not published, EU:C:2015:72, paragraph 34. Establishing the ‘normal market conditions’ presupposes an economic analysis: see judgment of 11 July 1996, SFEI and Others, C‑39/94, EU:C:1996:285, paragraph 61. 29 – Judgment of 22 November 2001, Ferring, C‑53/00, EU:C:2001:627, paragraphs 32 and 33 (‘Ferring’). 30 – I would also point out that, while one of the Commission’s grounds of appeal in the case leading to the judgment of 2 September 2010, Commission v Deutsche Post, C‑399/08 P, EU:C:2010:481, was the infringement of both (now) Articles 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU, the Court limited its assessment to (now) Article 107(1) TFEU and did not interpret (now) Article 106(2) TFEU; see, in particular, paragraphs 38 to 48 of that judgment. 31 – See, in that regard, the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C‑280/00, EU:C:2002:188, point 79 et seq. 32– See judgment of 15 November 2007, International Mail Spain, C‑162/06, EU:C:2007:681, paragraphs 34 and 35. 33 – See, to that effect, judgment of 23 October 1997, Commission v France, C‑159/94, EU:C:1997:501, paragraphs 55, 56 and 59. 34 – See, to that effect, judgments of 19 May 1993, Corbeau, C‑320/91, EU:C:1993:198, paragraphs 14 and 16; of 23 October 1997, Commission v France, C‑159/94, EU:C:1997:501, paragraphs 59, 95 and 96, and of 15 November 2007, International Mail Spain, C‑162/06, EU:C:2007:681, paragraphs 34 and 35. 35 – See, to that effect, judgment of 23 October 1997, Commission v France, C‑159/94, EU:C:1997:501, paragraph 53. 36 – OJ 1997 C 340, p. 109 (‘the Amsterdam Protocol’). 37 – Judgments of 1 July 2010, M6 v Commission, T‑568/08 and T‑573/08, EU:T:2010:272; of 11 March 2009, TF1 v Commission, T‑354/05, EU:T:2009:66; 7 November 2012, CBI v Commission, T‑137/10, EU:T:2012:584, and of 16 October 2013, TF1 v Commission, T‑275/11, not published, EU:T:2013:535. 38 – Opinions of Advocate General Tesauro in Corbeau, C‑320/91, EU:C:1993:52, and of Advocate General Tizzano in Ferring, C‑53/00, EU:C:2001:253. Viasat also criticises the judgment of 27 February 1997, FFSA and Others v Commission, T‑106/95, EU:T:1997:23, which refers to those Opinions. 39 – Judgment of 9 June 2016, Pesce and Others, C‑78/16 and C‑79/16, EU:C:2016:428, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited. 40 – See, to that effect, order of 6 February 2014, Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB, C‑28/13 P, EU:C:2014:230, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited.