Case T-101/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Austria v Commission (State aid — Nuclear industry — Aid planned by Hungary for the development of two new nuclear reactors at the Paks site — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to compliance with certain commitments — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Compliance of the aid with EU law other than State aid law — Inextricable link — Promotion of nuclear energy — First paragraph of Article 192 of the Euratom Treaty — Principle of protection of the environment, ‘polluter pays’ principle, precautionary principle and principle of sustainability — Determination of the economic activity concerned — Market failure — Distortion of competition — Proportionality of the aid — Need for State intervention — Determination of the aid elements — Public procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Hungary, Southern Transdanubia, State aid, control of State aid, energy production, environmental protection, nuclear energy, nuclear industry, nuclear reactor, polluter pays principle, precautionary principle








C_2023035EN.01004401.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/44






Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Austria v Commission
(Case T-101/18) (1)

(State aid - Nuclear industry - Aid planned by Hungary for the development of two new nuclear reactors at the Paks site - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to compliance with certain commitments - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Compliance of the aid with EU law other than State aid law - Inextricable link - Promotion of nuclear energy - First paragraph of Article 192 of the Euratom Treaty - Principle of protection of the environment, ‘polluter pays’ principle, precautionary principle and principle of sustainability - Determination of the economic activity concerned - Market failure - Distortion of competition - Proportionality of the aid - Need for State intervention - Determination of the aid elements - Public procurement procedure - Obligation to state reasons)
(2023/C 35/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: J. Schmoll, F. Koppensteiner, M. Klamert and T. Ziniel, acting as Agents, and by H. Kristoferitsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: A. Germeaux and T. Schell, acting as Agents, and by P. Kinsch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller, J. Pavliš and L. Halajová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, acting as Agent, and by P. Nagy, N. Gràcia Malfeito, B. Karsai, lawyers, and C. Bellamy KC), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by: S. Ondrášiková, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli, L. Baxter and S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and by T. Johnston, Barrister)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Austria seeks the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2112 of 6 March 2017 on the measure/aid scheme/State aid SA.38454 — 2015/C (ex 2015/N) which Hungary is planning to implement for supporting the development of two new nuclear reactors at Paks II nuclear power station (OJ 2017 L 317, p. 45).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.