Stardust Marine judgment cited above, paragraphs 56 and 57:‘(56) Other indicators might, in certain circumstances, be relevant in concluding that an aid measure taken by a public undertaking is imputable to the State, such as, in particular, its integration into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains.(57) [T]he mere fact that a public undertaking has been constituted in the form of a capital company under ordinary law cannot, having regard to the autonomy which that legal form is capable of conferring upon it, be regarded as sufficient to exclude the possibility of an aid measure taken by such a company being imputable to the State (Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraph 13). The existence of a situation of control and the real possibilities of exercising a dominant influence which that situation involves in practice makes it impossible to exclude from the outset any imputability to the State of a measure taken by such a company, and hence the risk of an infringement of the Treaty rules on State aid, notwithstanding the relevance, as such, of the legal form of the public undertaking as one indicator, amongst others, enabling it to be determined in a given case whether or not the State is involved.’
Sodba Stardust Marine, navedena v opombi 148, točki 56 in 57:„(56) V določenih okoliščinah bi lahko bili pri ugotavljanju tega, ali se ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejelo javno podjetje lahko pripiše državi, pomembni tudi drugi kazalniki, kot na primer vključitev javne gospodarske družbe v okvir javne uprave, narava njegovih dejavnosti in njihovo izvajanje na trgu pod običajnimi pogoji konkurence z zasebnimi gospodarskimi subjekti, pravni status podjetja (ki je pod nadzorom javnega prava ali skupnega prava gospodarskih družb), intenzivnost nadzora, ki ga izvajajo javni organi nad upravljanjem podjetja, ali kateri koli drugi kazalnik, ki v posameznem primeru kaže na vključevanje javnih organov pri sprejemanju ukrepa ali majhno verjetnost, da niso vpleteni, pri čemer se upoštevajo tudi okoliščine ukrepa, njegova vsebina ali pogoji, ki jih vsebuje.(57) [T]oda zgolj dejstvo, da je javno podjetje ustanovljeno v obliki kapitalske družbe po splošnem pravu, ob upoštevanju avtonomije, ki mu jo lahko daje taka pravna oblika, ni dovolj za izključitev dejstva, da se nek ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejela taka družba, pripiše državi (Sodba z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-305/89, Recueil, str. I-01603, točka 13). Obstoj položaja nadzora in dejanske možnosti izvajanja prevladujočega vpliva v praksi preprečujejo takojšnjo izključitev vsakršne možnosti pripisovanja ukrepa, ki ga je sprejela taka družba, državi in posledično tveganje nespoštovanja pravil Pogodbe o državni pomoči, ne glede na samo pomembnost pravne oblike javnega podjetja kot enega kazalnika, ki med drugim v posameznem primeru omogoča ugotavljanje tega, ali je država vpletena.“