CELEX: 62010CA0275
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-275/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam (Article 88(3) EC — State aid — Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender for the purpose of enabling the latter to grant a loan to a borrower — Infringement of procedural rules — Obligation to recover — Nullity — Powers of the national court)

4.2.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 32/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam
   (Case C-275/10) (1)
   
   (Article 88(3) EC - State aid - Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender for the purpose of enabling the latter to grant a loan to a borrower - Infringement of procedural rules - Obligation to recover - Nullity - Powers of the national court)
   2012/C 32/13
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Residex Capital IV CV
   
      Defendant: Gemeente Rotterdam
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — State aid — Interpretation of Art. 108(3) TFEU — Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender, enabling it to grant a loan to a borrower — Infringement of procedural rules — Jurisdiction of the national courts
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC must be interpreted as meaning that the national courts have jurisdiction to cancel a guarantee in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which unlawful aid was implemented by means of a guarantee provided by a public authority in order to cover a loan granted by a finance company to an undertaking which would not have been able to secure such financing under normal market conditions. When exercising that jurisdiction, those courts are required to ensure that the aid is recovered and, to that end, they can cancel the guarantee, in particular where, in the absence of less onerous procedural measures, that cancellation is such as to lead to or facilitate the restoration of the competitive situation which existed before that guarantee was provided.
   
      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.