Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:134
Date: 2017-03-01
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 1 March 2017 1. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — Exclusion — Conditions set out in the Altmark judgment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 2. Competition — Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest — Definition of services of general economic interest — Member States' discretion — Limits — Control by the Commission limited to cases of obvious error — Possibility of assessment on the basis of guidelines previously adopted by the Commission (Arts 106(2) TFEU and 107(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 3577/92, Arts 1 and 4; Commission Notice 2012/C 8/02, point 46) 3. State aid — Concept — Assessment having regard to Article 107(1) TFEU — Taking into account previous practice — Exclusion (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 4. State aid — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU) 5. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — First condition set out in the Altmark judgment – Maritime cabotage sector — Definition of services of general economic interest – 91129 / Real public service need — Scope – Obligation on the national authorities to demonstrate the existence of a shortage of private initiative (Art. 107(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 3577/92, Arts 1 and 4) 6. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — Fourth Altmark condition – Public contract procedure enabling selection of the candidate able to provide the services in the question at least cost to the public purse — Scope (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation – No infringement of the principles of proportionality and prohibition of unjust enrichment (Arts 106(2) TFEU and 107(1) TFEU) 8. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Obligation – Beneficiaries in difficulty or insolvent — Irrelevant (Art. 108(2) TFEU) 9. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation – Calculation of the amount to be recovered (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1) and (2)) 10. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 108 TFEU — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — Protection — Conditions and limits — No exceptional circumstances (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 84-90) 2. Given that the Member State enjoys wide discretion in defining a mission of service of general economic interest (SGEI mission) and the conditions for its implementation and also that the scope of the review that the Commission may carry out in that regard is limited to manifest error, the Court’s review of the Commission’s assessment in the matter may not go beyond those same parameters; accordingly, its review must be restricted to ascertaining whether the Commission properly found or rejected the existence of a manifest error by the Member State. However, the Member State’s power to define SGEIs is not unlimited and may not be exercised arbitrarily for the sole purpose of allowing a particular sector to circumvent the application of the competition rules. In particular, where there are specific rules of EU law governing the definition of the content and scope of the SGEI, they are binding on the Member States’ discretion, as provided for in paragraph 46 of the Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest. In the present case, there were such rules, namely the provisions of Regulation No 3577/92, applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), Article 1 of which enshrines the principle of freedom to provide maritime cabotage services in the European Union, and the third recital of which states that it seeks to abolish the restrictions on the freedom to provide services. Article 4 provides for possible exceptions to that guiding principle, in the form of the possibility for Member States to conclude public service contracts with shipping companies involved in regular services to, from and between islands or to impose public service obligations on them as a condition for the provision of cabotage services. (see paras 93, 112-115) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 98, 99) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 102) 5. Given the reasoning developed by the Court of Justice in Case C 205/99 Analir and Others, which is based on an interpretation of Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation No 3577/92 by reference to its fundamental objective, which is to ensure the freedom to provide maritime cabotage services and, consequently, to accept restrictions of that freedom only under very strict conditions, the Commission was correct, in a decision declaring the aid in question incompatible with the internal market, in finding, in order to verify compliance with the first of the Altmark criteria, that ‘the scope of the public service remit as defined by a public service contract had to be necessary and proportionate to a real public service need, as demonstrated by the lack of regular transport services under normal market conditions’. The national authorities cannot dispense with the requirement to demonstrate the existence of a shortage of private initiative. It is clear from paragraph 34 of the judgment in Analir and Others that the demonstration of the existence of a real public service need is linked to the existence of such a shortage of private initiative. In other words, it is on the basis of a finding of shortage of private initiative that the real public service need is determined. Thus, in order to be able to establish an SGEI in the maritime cabotage sector, it is not sufficient for the Member State to invoke the pursuit of an objective of territorial continuity. It is also necessary that that objective is not already being met simply through the interplay of market forces. If that interplay makes it possible to achieve a part of that objective, the creation of such an SGEI is justified only in so far as it makes up for the corresponding market shortcoming. (see paras 119, 124, 125, 172) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 238) 7. See the text of the decision. (see paras 268, 269) 8. See the text of the decision. (see para. 270) 9. See the text of the decision. (see para. 278) 10. See the text of the decision. (see paras 282-284, 292, 293)