Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:1002
Date: 2017-12-20
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 20 December 2017 1. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion — Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) 2. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Criteria for assessment –Measure which applies exclusively to a specific economic sector or to undertakings in a particular geographic area — Insufficient to support a finding that the measure is selective (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Jurisdiction of the Court –Review of the scope of the obligation to state reasons (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 256 TFEU and 296 TFEU) 4. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service tasks performed by an undertaking — First condition set out in the Altmark judgment — Clearly defined public service obligations — No recipient undertaking actually entrusted with carrying out public service obligations — Inclusion in the concept — Member States’ discretion — Scope (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 5. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 6. Appeal — Appeal upheld — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61, first para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 47, 48, 50, 72) 2. The condition relating to the selectivity of the advantage is a constituent factor in the concept of ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since this provision prohibits aid ‘favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. The assessment of that condition requires it to be determined whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ over others which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation. However, a measure which benefits only one economic sector or some of the undertakings in that sector is not necessarily selective. It is selective only if, within the context of a particular legal regime, it has the effect of conferring an advantage on certain undertakings over others, in a different sector or the same sector, which are, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, in a comparable factual and legal situation. (see paras 58, 61) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 59) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 76-78) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 88) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 97)