CELEX: 62016CA0579
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-579/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Appeal — State aid — Definition of ‘aid’ — Definition of ‘economic advantage’ — Market economy operator principle — Conditions governing applicability and application — Financial crisis — Successive bank bail outs — Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out)

7.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/10
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S
   (Case C-579/16 P) (1)
   
   ((Appeal - State aid - Definition of ‘aid’ - Definition of ‘economic advantage’ - Market economy operator principle - Conditions governing applicability and application - Financial crisis - Successive bank bail outs - Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out))
   (2018/C 161/11)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, L. Flynn and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission (T-386/14, EU:T:2016:474);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the first plea in the action before the General Court;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the second plea in law;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.