Judgment_paragraph 25 · Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH and Others v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol and Others (C-368/04)

25Planai brought an appeal before the Verfassungsgerichtshof, but that appeal was dismissed by judgment of 12 December 2002 (B 1348/02, Sammlung 16771) on the ground that there was no clearly erroneous application of the law which gave the Verfassungsgerichtshof jurisdiction to hear it. In its judgment, the Verfassungsgerichtshof noted inter alia:‘Since the Commission decision of 22 May 2002, the Verfassungsgerichtshof can assume that the prohibition on putting measures into effect under Article 88(3) EC (formerly Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty) at least no longer manifestly precludes the application of Article 2(1) of the EAVG. The authority concerned was therefore also permitted to apply that provision as far as possible.The Verwaltungsgerichtshof would have to address the question whether — as is claimed in the appeal — the Commission's decision infringed Community law only if the infringement of Community law were manifest, that is to say it could be established without further consideration ... or could be addressed from a constitutional perspective. However, this is not the case — even against the background of the judgment in Case C-354/90 Fédération Nationale du Commerce Extérieur des Produits Alimentaires and Syndicat National des Négociants et Transformateurs de Saumon v French State [1991] ECR I-5505 which dealt with the question of the effects of the failure to give notification, but not with the question of the lawfulness of an expressly retroactive authorisation of aid by the Commission.’

Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH and Others v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol and Others (C-368/04)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections