Judgment_paragraph 60 · Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) and European Commission vAlouminion tis Ellados VEAE (C-590/14 P)

60In the light of the aforementioned developments as a whole, it must be noted that, in paragraphs 54 to 56 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the case-law of the Court established by the judgments of 9 August 1994, Namur-Les assurances du crédit (C‑44/93, EU:C:1994:311), of 20 May 2010, Todaro Nunziatina & C. (C‑138/09, EU:C:2010:291), and confirmed by the judgments of 4 December 2013, Commission v Council (C‑121/10, EU:C:2013:784, paragraph 59), and of 4 December 2013, Commission v Council (C‑111/10, EU:C:2013:785, paragraph 58), and that, by ruling, in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, that the first order for interim measures was not to be regarded as the grant or alteration of aid, as provided for in Article 108(3) TFEU, the General Court erred in law.

Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) and European Commission vAlouminion tis Ellados VEAE (C-590/14 P)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections