Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:235
Date: 2015-04-16
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 16 April 2015 1. State aid — Concept — Exemption from fees and duties relating to the registration of a mortgage or enforcement — Included — Conditions (Art. 87(1) EC) 2. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — Not included — Conditions set out in the Altmark judgment (Arts 86(2) EC and 87(1) EC) 3. State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Notifying the Commission — Scope of the obligation (Arts 87(1) EC and 88(3) EC); Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 15(3)) 4. State aid — Respective powers of the Commission and the national courts — Role of the national courts — Safeguard of the rights of individuals where the obligation to give prior notification is infringed — Obligation of the national courts to draw all the consequences from that infringement in accordance with national law (Arts 87(1) EC and 88(3) EC) 1. Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that its scope of application may cover privileges in accordance with which a bank has the right unilaterally to register a mortgage over immovable property belonging to farmers or other persons engaged in similar agricultural activities, the right to seek enforcement with an ordinary private document and the right to be exempted from the payment of fees and duties connected with that registration. It is, however, for the referring court to determine whether that is the case. First of all, those privileges, due in particular to the exemption from those fees, are capable of depriving the treasury of the Member State of certain sources of liquidity and, therefore, to reduce the latter’s budget. Next, such an exemption could reduce the burden normally imposed on the budget of a bank, thereby conferring on it an economic advantage over its competitors. Other banks do not benefit from such an exemption, which would indicate that that measure is selective. Finally, it cannot be ruled out that that exemption, in connection with the other privileges granted, has the effect of strengthening the beneficiary bank’s position in relation to competing banks active in intra-European trade and that it makes it more difficult to penetrate the market of the Member State for banks established in other Member States. (see paras 28, 29, operative part 1) 2. The qualification of a measure as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC is capable of being affected by the fact that privileges, due in particular to the exemption from fees and duties relating to the registration of a mortgage or enforcement, conferred by national legislation upon an independent bank acting for the public benefit, at the time of its establishment, in consideration for entering into agricultural credit operations and specific tasks entrusted to that bank, are still in force, and that even after the functions of that bank were extended to cover all banking activities and that bank has become a public limited company. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant legal and factual circumstances, the four cumulative conditions justifying, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, the finding that those privileges constitute compensation for services provided by that bank in order to discharge public service obligations, and that they thus escape being classified as State aid, are satisfied. (see para. 35, operative part 2) 3. Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that where privileges, due in particular to the exemption from fees and duties relating to the registration of a mortgage or enforcement, fall within the scope of application of that provision, the Member State which established them is required to follow the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC provided that those privileges became new aid after the entry into force of the Treaty in the Member State concerned and that the limitation period laid down by Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] has not expired, which is a matter for the referring court to verify. (see para. 46, operative part 3) 4. Articles 87(1) EC and 88(3) EC must be interpreted as meaning that where the national court considers that the privileges at issue constitute, due in particular to the exemption from fees and duties relating to the registration of a mortgage or enforcement, new State aid, it is required to exclude the application of national provisions establishing such privileges on account of their incompatibility with those provisions of the Treaty. (see para. 54, operative part 4)