Judgment_paragraph 99 · Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission of the European Communities (T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97, T-601/97, T-602/97, T-603/97, T-604/97, T-605/97, T-606/97, T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98, T-4/98, T-5/98, T-6/98, T-23/98)

99Contrary to the applicants' interpretation, the judgments in Van der Kooy and Others v Commission cited above (paragraphs 28 to 30) and of 29 February 1996 in Belgium v Commission cited above (paragraphs 10, 39 and 66) lay down the rule that an advantage conferred on an undertaking with a view to correcting an unfavourable competitive situation is not a State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty if it is justified by economic criteria and if it does not discriminate between economic operators established in different Member States. The Court of Justice held that a preferential tariff granted by a State-controlled company does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty if, in the context of the market in question, it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to withstand competition from other sources of energy on the same market (Van der Kooy and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 30) or from imports from nonmember countries in order to retain an existing substantial clientele (Belgium v Commission, cited above, paragraph 39). In other words, in the former case the Court determined whether the preferential tariff in question had been fixed in the light of economic criteria, in applying the well- established case-law that, in classifying a measure as State aid, it is necessary to determine whether a private operator would have entered into the transaction on the same terms (see, for example, Case T-16/96 Cityflyer Express v Commission [1998] ECR II-757, paragraph 51, and the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly, Case C-251/97 France v Commission [1999] ECR I-6639, paragraph 19). In the latter case the Court determined whether this preferential tariff conferred an advantage on the recipient undertakings over competitors established in other Member States.

Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission of the European Communities (T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97, T-601/97, T-602/97, T-603/97, T-604/97, T-605/97, T-606/97, T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98, T-4/98, T-5/98, T-6/98, T-23/98)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections