Case T-141/25: Action brought on 20 February 2025 – Sanoma Media Finland v Commission
Date: 2025-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Finland, State aid, aid to undertakings, audiovisual programme, broadcasting, control of State aid, education, provision of services, services of general interest, television








C_202502560EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2560


12.5.2025






Action brought on 20 February 2025 – Sanoma Media Finland v Commission


(Case T-141/25)

(C/2025/2560)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sanoma Media Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: D. Geradin and K. Bania, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul wholly Commission Decision of 21 November 2024, published on 20 December 2024, regarding ‘State Aid SA.62830 (2021/FC) – Finland State aid to public service broadcaster YLE’ (‘the contested decision’) which specifies that the State aid supporting Yleisradio Oy’s (YLE) video-on-demand (‘VOD’) and online learning services is existing aid, insofar as it refuses to investigate whether the public funding of YLE’s VOD and online learning services qualifies as new aid that is severable from the original scheme despite the serious difficulties it encountered in classifying the nature of the aid;










—


annul wholly the contested decision which specifies that the definition of YLE’s remit covers VOD and online learning services and that the Act No. 1380 of 22 December 1993 on the Finnish Broadcasting Company (‘the Act on YLE’) properly entrusts YLE with the provision of VOD and online learning services, insofar as it wrongly concludes that YLE’s remit is sufficiently clear to include VOD and online learning services and that the Act on YLE legitimately entrusts YLE with the provision of VOD and online learning services;










—


annul wholly the contested decision, insofar as it fails to assess whether YLE’s supervision mechanism is adequate to ensure that YLE’s VOD and online learning services fulfil YLE’s remit;










—


annul wholly the contested decision which specifies that YLE’s VOD and online learning services do not create a disproportionate market impact, insofar as it fails to assess whether YLE’s financial supervision mechanism is adequate to prevent overcompensation for the contested services and insofar as it wrongly concludes that their effects on competition are limited;










—


annul wholly the contested decision which specifies that the definition of YLE’s remit covers VOD and online learning services and that the Act on YLE properly entrusts YLE with the provision of VOD and online learning services and which fails to assess the mechanisms that have been put in place to ensure adequate supervision and the avoidance of overcompensation insofar as it refrains from applying the rules of practice established in its Broadcasting Communication without providing an objective justification, breaching the principle of legitimate expectations;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment as it failed to open an investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU despite having serious difficulties in classifying the aid as existing aid.
By its first plea in law, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision not to initiate a formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU. Despite a long line of case law that requires the Commission to launch a formal investigation where it has serious doubts in assessing the disputed aid measure, including in classifying the aid as existing aid, the Commission wrongly refrained from doing so.
The applicant invokes two pieces of evidence to demonstrate that the assessment of the information which the Commission had at its disposal during the preliminary examination should have raised doubts as regards the classification of the aid at issue as existing aid, namely (a) the statement of reasons for the contested decision, and (b) the length of the preliminary examination:






—


as regards the statement of reasons, it is apparent from the relevant case law that if the analysis carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination is insufficient or incomplete, this constitutes evidence of the existence of serious difficulties. The applicant submits that, in the present case, the Commission conducted an insufficient and incomplete examination of the disputed measure; the Commission found that the introduction of YLE’s VOD and online learning services is not a significant alteration of the scope of YLE’s activities, thereby qualifying as existing aid. The Commission reached this conclusion without employing the correct legal standard. Concretely, to determine whether the provision of YLE’s VOD and online learning services falls under the existing aid scheme, the Commission assessed whether YLE’s remit is defined clearly in a manner that covers the contested services, and whether the Act on YLE properly entrusts YLE with the provision of the contested services. Based on a consistent body of evidence that examines (a) how the applicable legal standard for a clear definition and appropriate entrustment determined the outcome in other -similar- cases against the disputed measure, and (b) how the applicable legal standard applies to YLE’s VOD and online learning services, the applicant demonstrates that the Commission could not have reached the conclusion that the disputed measure qualifies as existing aid without conducting a formal investigation;










—


as regards the length of the preliminary examination, in the present case it amounted to 44 months. While such length cannot, of itself, lead to the conclusion that the preliminary examination procedure gave rise to serious difficulties, it must be considered in the light of the need to analyse the legislation at issue and the records relating to the financial support of YLE since 1993, the number of requests for information and the amount of correspondence, as well as the organisation of several meetings. Combined with these elements, the length attests to the existence of serious difficulties relating to the classification of the measure contested by the applicants.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment of whether the aid qualifies as new aid and whether such aid is compatible with the EU’s State aid rules, thereby infringing Article 106(2) TFEU. By its second plea in law, the applicant directly challenges the merits of the assessment of the disputed measure. Even though the Commission purports that the contested decision was restricted to assessing whether the aid is existing or new, it in fact assessed elements that determine the compatibility of the disputed measure with the EU’s State aid rules. In accordance with the relevant case law, aid for the contested services would be compatible with the EU’s State aid rules if (a) they were clearly defined in the public service remit (clear definition); (b) YLE were explicitly entrusted by the Member State with the provision of these services and an independent body effectively supervised fulfilment of the remit (adequate entrustment and supervision); and (c) the provision of the contested services did not disproportionately affect competition (proportionality test).
In the present case, the Commission conducted an incomplete assessment of whether YLE’s remit is defined in a clear manner, to the effect that it can cover YLE’s VOD and online learning services. The Commission also conducted an incomplete assessment of whether the Act on YLE and its implementation have properly entrusted YLE with providing VOD and online learning services, and it altogether failed to assess whether YLE’s supervision mechanism is compatible with the EU’s State aid rules. Finally, the Commission altogether failed to assess whether the mechanism that has been put in place is adequate to ensure that YLE is not overcompensated for its VOD and online learning services. Relatedly, the Commission attempted to assess whether YLE’s VOD and online learning services disproportionately impact competition in practice, but its assessment is vitiated by errors of law and fact.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, by refusing to initiate an investigation, and by assessing the compatibility of YLE’s aid scheme in a manner that goes against the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (1) and its administrative practice, the Commission breached the principle of legitimate expectations.
Over the past decades, the Commission received numerous complaints about the expansion of public service broadcasters into new media markets. In these cases, which include cases dealing with the provision of VOD and online learning services, the Commission (a) thoroughly investigated the schemes concerned, (b) raised concerns about their compatibility with the EU State aid rules, based on the standards set by its own administrative practice and the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (i.e., the rules of practice which set out how the Commission assesses aid measures supporting public service broadcasters), and (c) extracted commitments by the relevant Member States, including commitments that introduced restrictions on the provision of VOD and online learning services. The Commission adopts a diametrically opposed approach to the measure supporting YLE without providing an objective justification. As a result, the contested decision breaches the principle of legitimate expectations, which requires that legal rules be clear and precise and aims to ensure that the situations and legal relationships governed by EU law remain foreseeable.






(1)  Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (OJ 2009 C 257, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2560/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)