Kingdom of the Netherlands and ING Groep NV v European Commission (T-29/10, T-33/10)

Judgment of 2 Mar 2012

law://eu/cjeu/2010/t-29-10/para_97@2026-11-13

97In order to determine such an ‘advantage’ in the case of a capital injection, it must be assessed whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a dimension comparable to that of a public authority could have been prevailed upon to make capital contributions of the same size, having regard in particular to the information available and foreseeable developments at the date of those contributions (Case C-482/99 France v Commission, known as ‘Stardust Marine’ [2002] ECR I-4397, paragraph 70, and Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission [2003] ECR I-4035, paragraph 38). In its Stardust Marine judgment, the Court stated that, in order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken in order to assess the economic rationality of the State’s conduct, and thus to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation (Stardust Marine, paragraph 71).

Kingdom of the Netherlands and ING Groep NV v European Commission (T-29/10, T-33/10)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections