Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

European Union
European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF) (C-124/10 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The second ground of appeal: error of…
Findings of the Court
81

European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF) (C-124/10 P)

law://eu/cjeu/2010/c-124-10/para_81@2026-11-13

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Grand Chamber
Case: C-124/10 P · ECLI:EU:C:2012:318
Decided: 5 Jun 2012
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: European Commission
Rapporteur: A. Arabadjiev
Advocate General: J. Mazák
Bench: 13 judges
V. Skouris, A. Tizzano, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot, M. Safjan, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, A. Arabadjiev, D. Šváby, M. Berger
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62010CJ0124

Topics

History · 1 version

5 Jun 2012Reading

Judgment of 5 Jun 2012

81The applicability of the private investor test ultimately depends, therefore, on the Member State concerned having conferred, in its capacity as shareholder and not in its capacity as public authority, an economic advantage on an undertaking belonging to it.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Connections

Cited by 21: Staten genom Sjöfartsverket v Stockholms Hamn AB (C-401/24)2 provisions; Cividale SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others (C-746/23)2 provisions; Neottolemo, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) and Register.com LP - Sucursal em Portugal (Zona Franca da Madeira) v European Commission (T-724/22); JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v European Commission (C-710/22 P); Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission (C-758/21 P); Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission (T-79/21); Volotea, SA and easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v European Commission (C-331/20 P)2 provisions; Helsingin kaupunki v European Commission (T-597/19); JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v European Commission (T-642/19); 'Sātiņi-S' SIA (C-238/20); Gmina Kosakowo v European Commission (T-209/15); Oltchim SA v European Commission (T-565/19); Covestro Deutschland AG v European Commission (T-745/18); Ryanair DAC and Others v European Commission (T-448/18); TUIfly GmbH v European Commission (T-447/18); Comune di Milano v European Commission (C-160/19 P); easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v European Commission (T-8/18); Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v European Commission (C-244/18 P)2 provisions; Iberpotash, SA v European Commission (T-257/18); Arriva Italia Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (C-385/18); Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia – Omilos Epicheiriseon v European Commission (C-332/18 P)
Cites 12: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (40/85); Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (C-278/92, C-279/92, C-280/92); Chronopost SA, La Poste and French Republic v Union française de l'express (Ufex), DHL International, Federal express international (France) SNC and CRIE SA (C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P, C-94/01 P); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-303/88); Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (C-334/99); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-6/97); Banco de Crédito Industrial SA, now Banco Exterior de España SA v Ayuntamiento de Valencia (C-387/92); Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (C-156/98); Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere», Hotel Cipriani Srl and Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) v European Commission (C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P, C-76/09 P); French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-482/99); Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (234/84)