GĦAJNUNA MILL-ISTAT — SPANJA

Għajnuna mill-Istat SA.54155 (2021/NN) — Deċżjoni ta’ arbitraġġ favur Antin — Spanja

Stedina biex jintbagħtu l-kummenti skont l-Artikolu 108(2) tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea

(Test b'rilevanza għaż-ŻEE)

(2021/C 450/02)

Permezz tal-ittra bid-data tad-19 ta’ Lulju 2021 riprodotta fil-lingwa awtentika fil-paġni li jsegwu dan is-sommarju, il-Kummissjoni avżat lil Spanja bid-deċiżjoni tagħha li tagħti bidu għall-proċedura stabbilita fl-Artikolu 108(2) tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea fir-rigward tal-miżura msemmija hawn fuq.

Il-partijiet interessati jistgħu jibagħtu l-kummenti tagħhom, dwar il-miżura li dwarha il-Kummissjoni qed tiftaħ proċedura, fi żmien xahar mid-data tal-pubblikazzjoni ta’ dan is-sommarju u tal-ittra segwenti, lil:

European Commission, Directorate-General for Competition State Aid Greffe 1049 Brussels BELGIUM Faks: + 32 2 296 12 42 Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Dawn il-kummenti se jiġu kkomunikati lil Spanja. Il-parti interessata li tissottometti l-kummenti u/jew partijiet mill-kummenti sottomessi tista’ titlob bil-miktub biex l-identità tagħha tibqa’ kunfidenzjali, filwaqt li tagħti r-raġunijiet għat-talba.

Fis-17 ta’ April 2019, Spanja nnotifikat id-deċiżjoni ta’ arbitraġġ maħruġa fil-15 ta’ Ġunju 2018 mit-Tribunal tal-Arbitraġġ (“it-tribunal”) stabbilit taħt l-awspiċi taċ-Ċentru Internazzjonali għas-Soluzzjoni ta’ Tilwim dwar l-Investiment (“ICSID”), fil-kuntest tal-proċedimenti ta’ arbitraġġ, il-Kawża ICSID Nru ARB/13/31 Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. u Antin Energia Termosolar B.V. (flimkien “Antin”) vs Spanja. Id-deċiżjoni, kif emendata fid-29 ta’ Jannar 2019, tagħti lil Antin kumpens ta’ EUR 101 miljun, flimkien mal-imgħax fuq din is-somma u l-kontribuzzjoni għall-kostijet tal-proċedimenti tal-arbitraġġ, li għandhom jitħallsu minn Spanja minħabba l-ksur minn Spanja tat-Trattat tal-Karta tal-Enerġija (id-“deċiżjoni” jew il-“miżura”).

Fl-2011, Antin investiet fl-akkwiżizzjoni ta’ 45 % tal-ishma fil- “kumpaniji Andasol”, jiġifieri f’Andasol-1 Central Termosolar UNO S.A. u Andasol-2 Central Termosolar DOS. Il-kumpaniji Andasol għandhom u joperaw l-impjant Andasol-1 u l-impjant Andasol-2, żewġ installazzjonijiet tal-enerġija solari kkonċentrata (“CSP”) b’kapaċità ta’ 49.9 MW kull wieħed, li jinsabu fi Granada, Spanja (flimkien, “l-impjanti ta’ Andasol”). Il-kostruzzjoni tal-impjanti ta’ Andasol tlestiet fl-2008 u fl-2009 u dawn ġew irreġistrati fir-reġistru amministrattiv rilevanti tal-faċilitajiet tal-produzzjoni tal-elettriku fl-2009.

Fiż-żmien tal-investiment ta’ Antin, l-impjanti ta’ Andasol kienu qed jibbenefikaw mill-iskema ekonomika primjum li kienet fis-seħħ (l-“iskema tal-2007”). Din l-iskema kellha l-għan li trawwem il-produzzjoni tal-elettriku minn sorsi ta’ enerġija rinnovabbli (“RES”) u kienet irregolata mid-Digrieti Irjali 661/2007, 1578/2008 u 6/2009. Taħt l-iskema tal-2007, l-impjanti ta’ Andasol ibbenefikaw ukoll mill-appoġġ għall-elettriku prodott bil-gass naturali mill-2009 sal-2012.

Spanja emendat l-iskema tal-2007 permezz ta’ sensiela ta’ atti legali, jiġifieri d-Digriet Amministrattiv Irjali 9/2013, il-Liġi 24/2013, id-Digriet Irjali 413/2014 u l-Ordnijiet IET/1045/2014 u IET/1459/2014 (l-“iskema tal-2013”). L-iskema tal-2013 tapplika metodoloġija differenti għall-kalkolu tar-remunerazzjoni għall-installazzjonijiet tal-enerġija rinnovabbli meta mqabbla mal-iskema tal-2007. L-iskema tal-2013 rċeviet l-approvazzjoni tal-għajnuna mill-Istat fl-2017 (ara SA.40348 – id-“Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni tal-2017”) skont il-linji gwida dwar l-għajnuna mill-Istat għall-protezzjoni ambjentali u l-enerġija 2014-2020 (“EEAG”) (1). Spanja sostniet li l-impjanti ta’ Andasol għadhom jirċievu appoġġ taħt l-iskema tal-2013 sal-lum.

F’Awwissu 2017, Antin biegħet l-investiment tagħha fl-impjanti ta’ Andasol lil Cubico Sustainable Investments Limited bi prezz ta’ EUR 75,2 miljun.

Skont Antin, il-bidliet fil-qafas legali Spanjol applikabbli għall-impjanti CSP, li fihom Antin investiet, ikkawżaw danni serji u sostanzjali lill-investimenti tagħha u kienu kontra l-obbligi ta’ Spanja skont it-Trattat tal-Karta tal-Enerġija (“TKE”), b’mod partikolari l-prinċipju ta’ trattament ġust u ekwu skont l-Artikolu 10(1). Għalhekk, f’Novembru 2013, Antin ippreżentat rikors kontra Spanja quddiem it-tribunal.

It-tribunal ikkonkluda li Spanja kisret l-Artikolu 10(1) tat-TKE billi naqset milli tagħti trattament ġust u ekwu lill-investimenti ta’ Antin u tat kumpens. Dan huwa dovut għall-bidliet regolatorji għall-iskema ta’ remunerazzjoni għal installazzjonijiet rinnovabbli li rriżultaw minn atti legali li Spanja adottat minn Lulju 2013 meta mqabbla mal-iskema ta’ remunerazzjoni li kienet fis-seħħ fiż-żmien tal-investiment ta’ Antin.

Il-benefiċjarju tal-miżura huwa r-riċevitur tal-kumpens tad-deċiżjoni, jiġifieri Antin. Il-forma ta’ appoġġ se tikkonsisti f’pagament ta’ darba tal-ammont totali kkalkulat bħala d-deċiżjoni tal-arbitraġġ, l-interessi ta’ qabel id-deċiżjoni, kif ukoll l-interessi ta’ wara d-deċiżjoni, li se jkollhom jiġu kkalkulati mill-ġdid fuq il-bażi tad-data tal-pagament attwali. Fiż-żmien tan-notifika, Spanja stmat l-ammont totali għal EUR 114 900 983. Il-ħlas tal-kumpens se jiġi ffinanzjat mill-baġit ġenerali tal-Istat Spanjol.

Spanja sostniet li d-deċiżjoni hija għajnuna mill-Istat inkompatibbli. Li l-uniku għan tal-miżura huwa li tikkonforma ma’ deċiżjoni ta’ arbitraġġ infurzabbli u vinkolanti. Barra minn hekk, Spanja sostniet li l-miżura ma għandha l-ebda effett ta’ inċentiv u li l-intervent tal-Istat huwa obbligatorju sa fejn il-konformità mad-deċiżjoni hija vinkolanti fuq Spanja u d-deċiżjoni tilqa’ t-talbiet ta’ Antin billi tagħtiha kumpens li għandu jitħallas minn Spanja.

Fil-25 ta’ Ġunju 2021, il-Qorti Federali Sħiħa fl-Awstralja rrikonoxxiet id-deċiżjoni bħala vinkolanti għal Spanja.

Il-Kummissjoni tqis, f’dan l-istadju, li l-kriterji kumulattivi għall-eżistenza ta’ għajnuna mill-Istat huma ssodisfati u li l-miżura tikkostitwixxi għajnuna mill-Istat. F’dan ir-rigward, il-Kummissjoni tirreferi wkoll għall-valutazzjoni li saret fit-Taqsima 3.5.3 fid-Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni tal-2017, fejn huwa nnutat li kwalunkwe kumpens, li tribunal tal-arbitraġġ jagħti lil investitur fuq il-bażi li Spanja mmodifikat l-iskema tal-2007 bl-iskema tal-2013 jikkostitwixxi fih innifsu għajnuna mill-Istat. Madankollu, it-tribunali tal-arbitraġġ mhumiex kompetenti biex jawtorizzaw l-għoti ta’ għajnuna mill-Istat. Dik hija kompetenza esklussiva tal-Kummissjoni. Għalhekk, dan il-kumpens huwa għajnuna mill-Istat notifikabbli skont l-Artikolu 108(3) tat-TFUE u huwa soġġett għall-obbligu ta’ waqfien totali.

Spanja ma ppreżentatx argumenti li jistgħu jiġġustifikaw il-miżura skont l-Artikoli 107(2) u/jew 107(3) tat-TFUE. F’dan l-istadju tal-proċedura, il-Kummissjoni tesprimi d-dubji preliminari tagħha dwar il-kompatibbiltà tal-miżura mas-suq intern, u b’mod partikolari dwar (i) ksur possibbli tat-Trattati tal-UE mill-miżura ta’ għajnuna, u (ii) in-nuqqas ta’ konformità tal-miżura ta’ għajnuna mal-kriterji ta’ kompatibbiltà skont il-linji gwida rilevanti dwar l-għajnuna mill-Istat.

Fir-rigward ta’ (i), peress li d-deċiżjoni ġiet adottata abbażi tal-mekkaniżmu ta’ arbitraġġ bejn l-investitur u l-Istat stabbilit fl-Artikolu 26 tat-TKE, il-Kummissjoni, f’dan l-istadju, tqis li d-deċiżjoni tista’ tikser l-Artikolu 19(1) TUE, l-Artikoli 267 u 344 TFUE, u l-prinċipji ġenerali tad-dritt tal-Unjoni ta’ fiduċja reċiproka u awtonomija. Barra minn hekk, il-Kummissjoni għandha dubji peress li d-deċiżjoni tista’ toħloq diskriminazzjoni fost l-investituri tal-iskema tal-2007 abbażi tan-nazzjonalità tagħhom u l-kapaċità li jaċċessaw l-arbitraġġ internazzjonali.

Fir-rigward ta’ (ii), il-Kummissjoni tinnota li l-mument tal-għoti tal-għajnuna huwa rilevanti sabiex jiġi stabbilit taħt liema linji gwida tal-għajnuna mill-Istat għandha tiġi vvalutata l-għajnuna. Il-Kummissjoni tivvaluta l-kompatibbiltà tal-miżura skont il-linji gwida tal-2008 dwar l-Għajnuna mill-Istat għall-ħarsien tal-ambjent (l- “EAG”) (2), li japplikaw jekk il-mument tal-għoti jkun meta l-iskema tal-2007 ġiet immodifikata mill-iskema tal-2013, kif ukoll skont l-EEAG, li japplikaw jekk il-mument tal-għoti jkun l-adozzjoni jew l-eżekuzzjoni tal-għotja.

Il-Kummissjoni tivvaluta skont il-kriterji ta’ kompatibbiltà fl-EAG u fl-EEAG applikabbli għall-għajnuna għall-enerġija minn sorsi rinnovabbli, peress li din hija l-attività li wasslet għall-proċedimenti ta’ arbitraġġ li wasslu għad-deċiżjoni.

Abbażi tal-informazzjoni disponibbli, il-Kummissjoni għandha dubji dwar jekk il-miżura għandhiex effett ta’ inċentiv u hijiex meħtieġa sabiex tiġi żviluppata l-attività ekonomika tal-produzzjoni tal-elettriku minn sorsi rinnovabbli jew ta’ attività oħra. Barra minn hekk, peress li l-impjanti ta’ Andasol jirċievu appoġġ taħt l-iskema tal-2013, il-kumpens mogħti mid-deċiżjoni jżid ir-rata ta’ redditu ogħla mil-livelli li l-Kummissjoni sabet proporzjonati għall-impjanti eżistenti, bħall-impjanti ta’ Andasol, fid-Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni tagħha tal-2017. Barra minn hekk, peress li l-kumpens skont id-deċiżjoni jingħata lil wieħed biss mill-benefiċjarji ta’ dik l-iskema, dan jista’ joħloq distorsjoni bla bżonn tal-kompetizzjoni.

F’konformità mal-Artikolu 16 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (UE) 2015/1589 (3), kull għajnuna illegali tista’ tkun soġġetta għal irkupru mill-benefiċjarju.

TEST TAL-ITTRA

(1) Il-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni – Linji Gwida dwar l-għajnuna mill-Istat għall-protezzjoni ambjentali u l-enerġija 2014-2020 (ĠU C 200, 28.6.2014, p. 1).

(2) Il-Linji gwida Komunitarji dwar l-Għajnuna mill-Istat għall-ħarsien tal-ambjent (traduzzjoni mhux uffiċjali) (ĠU C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1).

(3) Ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (UE) 2015/1589 tat-13 ta' Lulju 2015 li jistabblixxi regoli dettaljati għall-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 108 tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea (ĠU L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9).

(4) ICSID Case No ARB/13/31. Details available here: https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB/13/31.

(5) The Energy Charter Treaty is a multilateral agreement applicable to the energy sector. It was signed by the EU in December 1994 and entered into force for the EU in April 1998. Its key provisions concern the protection of investment, trade in energy materials and products, transit and dispute settlement. The ECT is currently under modernisation process.

(6) Commission Decision of 10 November 2017 in State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) — Spain — Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste (JOCE C/442/2017).

(7) Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385).

(8) See also 2017 Commission Decision, section 3.5.3.

(9) Amicus curiae briefs submitted by the European Union in several proceedings before the U.S. Courts, including in Civil Action No. 18-1753 Antin v Spain; the text of those amicus curiae briefs is available at https://ec.europa.eu/competition-policy/state-aid/national-courts/observations-other-courts_en; see also the relevant Council document ST 6146 2019, endorsing the filing of this amicus curiae brief, available at https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6146-2019-INIT/fr/pdf. See also Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on ‘Protection of intra-EU investment’ of 19 July 2018 (COM (2018) 547 final), page 3-4.

(10) Case A 1/20, Request for an opinion by Belgium, and Case C-155/21, Athena Investment v Spain.

(11) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5198_en.htm. The Commission notes that on 5 May 2020, 23 Member States signed an agreement for the termination of intra-EU BITs. That agreement implements the Achmea judgment and entered into force on 29 August 2020.

(12) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2018, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

(13) This interpretation was confirmed by the Advocate General Szpunar Opinion of 3 March 2021 in Case C- 741/19, République de Moldavie, ECLI:EU:C:2021:164, see in particular paragraphs 70-80 and 89-90; see also the Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe Opinion of 29 October 2020 in Joined Cases C-798/18 and C-799/18, Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2020:876, paragraph 92 and footnote 55.

(14) Judgment in Commission v Italy, 10/61, EU:C:1962:2, page 10: ‘In matters governed by the EEC treaty, that treaty takes precedence over agreements concluded between the Member States before its entry into force.’ This principle has been confirmed many times thereafter both for multilateral agreements and bilateral agreements, see for example judgments in Conegate, 121/85, EU:C:1986:114, paragraph 25; in Matteucci v Communauté française de Belgique, C-235/87, EU:C:1988:460, paragraph 22; in Exportur, C-3/91, EU:C:1992:420, paragraph 8, in Commission v Luxembourg, C-473/93, EU:C:1996:263, paragraph 40; in Commission v Austria, C-147/03, EU:C:2005:427, paragraph 58; in Budějovický Budvar, C-478/07, EU:C:2009:521, paragraphs 97 to 99; and in Commission v Slovakia, C-264/09, EU:C:2011:580, paragraph 41.

(15) See, for instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 May 2006, Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2006:345; Opinion 2/13 paragraph 180.

(16) See in this regard i) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on ‘Protection of intra-EU investment’ of 19 July 2018 (COM (2018) 547 final), page 3-4; and ii) Declaration of the Representations of the Governments of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the legal consequences of the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment Protection in the European Union, page 2. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2018, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

(17) Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33).

(18) Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2001 in C-379/98, PreussenElektra, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160.

(19) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16).

(20) Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ C 200, 28.6.2014, p. 1).

(21) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20).

(22) Antin award, paragraph 91.

(23) See Article 2 (1) of Royal Decree 661/2007.

(24) Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 in Case C-275/13 Elcogas. The Court found that the compensation mechanism was imputable to the State, since it was established and regulated by Law 54/1997 and Royal Decree 2017/1997. Relying on those provisions, the Court also concluded that the compensation mechanism for extra costs was financed through State resources. In particular, the Court observed that a Ministerial Decree fixed annually the amount of the network access charges, that the latter were imposed on all domestic final consumers and network users. Moreover, the National Energy Commission, a State body, administered the funds thus collected and did not enjoy any discretion in that regard.

(25) For an exhaustive list of the scheme’s legal basis, see Section 2.1 of the 2017 Commission Decision.

(26) For details on the eligible technologies, see recital 14 of the 2017 Commission Decision.

(27) This rate was applicable to the first regulatory period (2014-2019). From the second regulatory period onwards, the rate is 7,09 %, if no use is made of the second additional provision of Royal Decree-Law 17/2019, to maintain the profitability of the previous period.

(28) Antin award, paragraph 139-140.

(29) See 2017 Commission Decision, recital 120.

(30) Antin award, paragraph 110.

(31) Antin award, paragraphs 70, 72.

(*1) Data are only available for November and December 2009, and the reported energy input corresponds only to this period.

(*2) Spain explained that this reduction is due to a smaller generation in the period March-June 2020, which corresponds to the lockdown due to COVID-19 crisis and that in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 production recovered to normal levels, even exceeding those of the previous year.

(32) Antin award, paragraph 261.

(33) Antin award, paragraph 359.

(34) Antin award, paragraph 46.

(35) Antin award, paragraph 236.

(36) Antin award, paragraphs 59-68.

(37) Antin award, paragraphs 51-53, 56-58.

(38) Antin award, paragraphs 572-573.

(39) Antin award, paragraph 748.

(40) Antin award, paragraph 640.

(41) Antin award, paragraph 587.

(42) Antin award, paragraph 667.

(43) Antin award, paragraph 673.

(44) Antin award, paragraph 691, 714, 725 (as amended by the tribunal’s rectification decision of 29 January 2019).

(*3) Actual data based on CNMC information

(45) See 2017 Commission Decision, recital 165. This view has been confirmed in the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar of 1 July 2021 in Case C-638/19 P, Commission v European Food and Others.

(46) Judgment of the Court of 11 July 1996, Case C-39/94, SFEI and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, paragraph 60; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 1999, Case C-342/96, Spain v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, paragraph 41.

(47) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 September 1988, Joined Cases 106/87 to 120/87, Asteris and Others v Greece and EEC, ECLI:EU:C:1988:457, paragraph 23.

(48) Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019, Case T-624/15, European Food and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2019:423, paragraph 103.

(49) See recitals 101 and 102 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (OJ L 232, 4.9.2015, p. 43).

(50) Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer has explained that the award of damages equal to the sum of the amounts of aid that were envisaged to be granted would constitute an indirect grant of the aid found to be illegal and incompatible with the common market (Opinion of 28 April 2005, Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03, Atzeni and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2005:256, paragraph 198).

(51) Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019, Case T-624/15, European Food and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2019:423, paragraph 78. The appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice are ongoing: C-638/19 P, Commission v European Food and Others. The Advocate General Szpunar considered in his Opinion, delivered on 1 July 2021, that the General Court erred in law as regards the moment at which the aid was granted (ECLI:EU:C:2021:529, paragraphs 125, 128-129, 133-135).

(52) See footnote 52 above.

(53) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007, Case T-68/03, Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2007:253, paragraph 34.

(54) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 September 2020, Case C-594/18 P, Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), ECLI:EU:C:2020:742, paragraph 44.

(55) See 2017 Commission Decision, recitals 159-166.

(56) Either on 2 September 2021 in case C-741/19 Republic of Moldova, or in opinion 1/20 or in case C-155/21, which should be decided within the next 18 months.

(57) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2018, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

(58) See in this regard i) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on ‘Protection of intra-EU investment’ of 19.7.2018 (COM (2018) 547 final), page 3-4; and ii) Declaration of the Representations of the Governments of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the legal consequences of the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment Protection in the European Union, page 2.

(59) The Commission shall assess the compatibility of unlawful State aid with the internal market in accordance with the substantive criteria set out in any instrument in force at the time when the aid was granted. See Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (notified under document number C(2002) 458) (OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 22).

(60) Judgment of the Court of 19 December 2019, Case C-385/18, Arriva Italia and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1121, paragraph 36.

(61) Commission decision of 30 March 2015 in State aid SA.38517 Micula v Romania (ICSID arbitration award). The Commission decision was annulled by the Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019, Case T-624/15, European Food and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2019:423. The appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice are ongoing (C-638/19 P, Commission v European Food and Others).

(62) Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1).

(63) See footnote 52 above.

(64) As confirmed by the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 September 2020, Case C-594/18 P, Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), ECLI:EU:C:2020:742.

(65) The Court of Justice has established the criteria to define an economic unit in its Judgment of 10 January 2006, C-222/04, Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2006:8, paragraph 109-125.

(66) See 2017 Commission Decision, recital 120.

(67) As confirmed by the recent Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 September 2020, Case C-594/18 P, Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), ECLI:EU:C:2020:742.

(68) See 2017 Commission Decision, recitals 119-124.

(69) See 2017 Commission Decision, recital 120.