Case C-672/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household — Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee — Article 108(3) TFEU — Measure not previously notified to the European Commission — Unlawfulness)
Date: 2015-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Hungary, State aid, control of State aid, credit institution, housing, interpretation of the law, law of states








C_2015155EN.01000502.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/5





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár
(Case C-672/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household - Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee - Article 108(3) TFEU - Measure not previously notified to the European Commission - Unlawfulness))
(2015/C 155/06)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OTP Bank Nyrt

Defendants: Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

Operative part of the judgment

The guarantee provided by the Hungarian State under Paragraph 25(1) and (2) of Government Decree No 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 concerning aid intended to facilitate access to housing, granted exclusively to credit institutions prima facie constitutes ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, it is for the referring court to ascertain more specifically the selective nature of such a guarantee by determining, in particular, whether, following the amendment of the Decree of 2001 which is supposed to have taken place in 2008, that guarantee may be granted to economic operators other than credit institutions and, in the affirmative, whether that fact may call into question the selective nature of that guarantee.
If the referring court classifies the State guarantee at issue in the main proceedings as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, such a guarantee must be regarded as new aid and is, on that ground, subject to the obligation of prior notification to the European Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU. It is for the referring court to verify whether the Member State concerned has complied with that obligation and, if that is not the case, to declare that guarantee unlawful.
The beneficiaries of a State guarantee, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, granted without regard for Article 108(3) TFEU and, therefore, unlawful, do not have any remedies available in accordance with EU law.


(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.