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

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

European Union
Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (T-538/11)
Judgment
Law
Substance
Second part of the single plea: the fi…
65

Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (T-538/11)

Judgment of 25 Mar 2015law://eu/cjeu/2011/t-538-11/para_65@2026-11-11

65It should be observed, moreover, that intervention by the Member States in areas which have not been harmonised in the European Union is not excluded from the scope of the rules on the monitoring of State aid. To accept the contrary would necessarily deprive Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU of their practical effect.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · First Chamber
Case: T-538/11 · ECLI:EU:T:2015:188
Decided: 25 Mar 2015
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: E. Buttigieg
Bench: 3 judges
H. Kanninen, I. Pelikánová, E. Buttigieg
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62011TJ0538

Topics

Public health State aid

History · 1 version

25 Mar 2015Reading

Connections

Cited by 22: ClientEarth AISBL v European Commission (T-359/21); Swissgrid AG v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (T-557/23); Swissgrid AG v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (T-558/23); Swissgrid AG v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (T-556/23); Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-336/20); Northtechnic OOD v European Commission (T-6/24); Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale v Single Resolution Board (T-407/22); CQ v European Court of Auditors (T-386/19); Volkskreditbank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-348/21); Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-347/21); St. Jude Medical Coordination Center (SJM Coordination Center) v European Commission (T-420/16); Nizar Assaad v Council of the European Union (T-426/21); Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission (T-469/20); Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd and Others v European Commission (T-508/19)2 provisions; FJ and Others v European External Action Service (T-619/20); FZ and Others v European Commission (T-618/20); Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft v Community Plant Variety Office (T-182/20); Interpipe Niko Tube OOO and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant PAO v European Commission (T-716/19); FT and Others v European Commission (T-699/19); FJ and Others v European External Action Service (T-698/19); Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Others v European Commission (T-516/18, T-525/18)2 provisions; Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v European Commission (T-755/15, T-759/15)2 provisions
Cites 20: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)5 provisions; Deutsche Post AG and Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (C-463/10 P); Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (C-164/02); European Commission and Kingdom of Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-106/09 P, C-107/09 P); Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v 3M Italia SpA (C-417/10); Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (C-143/99); Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (C-5/01); European Parliament v Council of the European Union (C-316/91); Mo Och Domsjö AB v Commission of the European Communities (T-352/94); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (173/73); Wolfgang Heiser v Finanzamt Innsbruck (C-172/03); Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Ville de Seraing and Province de Liège (C-393/04, C-41/05); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (T-222/04); French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-251/97); Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v GEMO SA (C-126/01); Italian Republic v European Commission (T-379/09); European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (C-279/08 P); Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (22/70); French Republic v European Commission (T-154/10)