CELEX: 62013CA0690
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-690/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Efeteio Thrakis (Greece) — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias AE v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados AE (ATE), Pavlos Sidiropoulos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Meaning — Article 87(1) EC — Privileges granted to a bank — Company exercising public service obligations — Existing aid and new aid — Article 88(3) EC — Powers of the national court)

15.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 198/9
            
         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Efeteio Thrakis (Greece) — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias AE v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados AE (ATE), Pavlos Sidiropoulos
   (Case C-690/13) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Meaning - Article 87(1) EC - Privileges granted to a bank - Company exercising public service obligations - Existing aid and new aid - Article 88(3) EC - Powers of the national court))
   (2015/C 198/12)
   Language of the case: Greek
   
      Referring court
   
   Efeteio Thrakis
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias AE
   
      Defendants: Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados AE (ATE), Pavlos Sidiropoulos
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that its scope of application may cover privileges, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which a bank has the right unilaterally to register a mortgage over immovable property belonging to farmers or other persons engaged in similar agricultural activities, the right to seek enforcement with an ordinary private document and the right to be exempted from the payment of fees and duties connected with that registration. It is, however, for the referring court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The answer to question 1(a) is capable of being affected by the fact that privileges, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, conferred by national legislation upon an independent bank acting for the public benefit, at the time of its establishment, in consideration for entering into agricultural credit operations and specific tasks entrusted to that bank, are still in force, and that even after the functions of that bank were extended to cover all banking activities and that bank has become a public limited company. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant legal and factual circumstances, the four cumulative conditions justifying, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, the finding that those privileges constitute compensation for services provided by that bank in order to discharge public service obligations, and that they thus escape being classified as State aid, are satisfied.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that where privileges, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, fall within the scope of application of that provision, the Member State which established them is required to follow the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC provided that those privileges became new aid after the entry into force of the Treaty in the Member State concerned and that the limitation period laid down by Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] has not expired, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Articles 87(1) EC and 88(3) EC must be interpreted as meaning that where the referring court considers that the privileges at issue constitute, in view of the answer to question 2, new State aid, it is required to exclude the application of national provisions establishing such privileges on account of their incompatibility with those provisions of the Treaty.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.