Case C-333/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 April 2019 — DA v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) — and FC, S. C. European Food S.A., S. C. Starmill S.R. L., S. C. Multipack S.R. L. v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, DA, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)
Date: 2019-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Romania, State aid, control of State aid, damages, investment, jurisdiction, less-favoured region, reimbursement of aid, ruling








C_2019220EN.01002401.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 April 2019 — DA v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) — and FC, S. C. European Food S.A., S. C. Starmill S.R. L., S. C. Multipack S.R. L. v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, DA, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)
(Case C-333/19)
(2019/C 220/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: DA

Respondents: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)

Other parties: European Commission, FC, S. C. European Food S.A., S. C. Starmill S.R. L., S. C. Multipack S.R. L.

Appellants: FC, S. C. European Food S.A., S. C. Starmill S.R. L., S. C. Multipack S.R. L.

Respondents: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, DA, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)

Other party: European Commission

Questions referred







1.


Is Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of the European Commission of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (1) to be understood as referring to payments due from Romania even in a case where payments are recovered against Romania as a result of proceedings to enforce the ICSID arbitral award of 11 December 2013 brought before the courts of a Member State other than Romania?










2.


Does EU law itself automatically require a court of a Member State (other than Romania), before which an action is brought to oppose proceedings for the enforcement of an ICSID arbitral award which has the force of res judicata according to the national procedural rules of that Member State, to reject that award, for the sole reason that a non-definitive decision of the European Commission adopted after the date of the award considers enforcement of that award to be contrary to the EU State aid regime?










3.


Does EU law, in particular the principle of cooperation in good faith and the principle of res judicata, allow the national court of a Member State (other than Romania) not to comply with its international obligations under the ICSID Convention in a situation where the European Commission has adopted a decision after the date of that award, under which enforcement of the award is regarded as contrary to the EU State aid regime, even when the European Commission participated in the arbitration proceedings (including the action for annulment of the award) and put forward its case in relation to the EU State aid regime?






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award […] of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112) (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43).