Case C‑505/14

Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

v

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — State aid — Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU — Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid — Res judicata — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Principle of effectiveness’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 11 November 2015

State aid — Aid granted in disregard of the procedural rules of Article 108(3) TFEU — Rule of national law seeking to enshrine the principle of the force of res judicata preventing the national court from drawing all the consequences of the infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU — Obligations and powers of the national courts — Interpretation of the national rules in conformity with EU law — Scope

State aid — Respective powers of the Commission and the national courts — Role of the national courts — Safeguarding of the rights of individuals where an aid scheme is implemented before the Commission decision — Duty on national courts, in accordance with national law, to draw all the consequences of any infringement of EU law — Possibility of suspending execution of the measure at issue, of requiring the recovery of amounts already paid and of ordering provisional measures — Grant of provisional measures

See the text of the decision. (see paras 18-26)

The principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law also requires national courts to do whatever lies within their jurisdiction, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, with a view to ensuring that EU law is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it. Where a national court finds that contracts concluded between a public entity and a private undertaking constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, which has been implemented in breach of the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, but considers itself prevented from satisfying its obligation to draw all the consequences from that breach because of a judgment of a national court confirming that the contracts at issue remained in force is res judicata, without it having examined their possible categorisation as State aid, that court must examine the possibility of ordering a measure such as the temporary suspension of the contracts at issue until the adoption of the Commission decision closing the procedure, which would enable that court to satisfy its obligations under the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU without actually ruling on the validity of the contracts at issue.. Furthermore, judgments are able to become res judicata only in so far as a ruling has been given on the complaint made in the action or on a counterclaim. Accordingly, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether such a limitation, expressly set out in national law, does not authorise it to interpret that provision as meaning that, when a breach of the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU is claimed, the force of res judicata extends only to the legal claims on which the court has ruled and therefore does not preclude a court from ruling, in a later dispute, on points of law on which there is no ruling in that definitive decision. In fact, a temporary suspension of the contracts at issue or an interpretation of national law in such a way as to contribute to the implementation of EU law would not have the effect of calling into question the legal finality definitively attaching to the ruling. (see paras 27, 34-37)