In brief: C-37/14 Commission v France

fruit and vegetables
On Thursday 12th February the CJEU passed down its ruling in C-37/14, finding that France did not take all necessary measures to recover aid illegally granted to the fruit and vegetable sector and thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 288(4) TFEU.

The full ruling is available here and the press release can be accessed here.

The aid in question concerned ‘contingency plans’ to prevent or negate the effects that supply of fruit and vegetables exceeding demand could have on the sector and was given to producer organisations (POs) to pass on. On 28th January 2009 the European Commission decided (Decision 2009/402/EC C29/05 (ex NN 57/05)) declared this aid in illegal; the case at hand concerns not the Commission decision itself, but rather the failure of France – under Article 288(4) TFEU – to to fulfil its treaty obligations by neglecting to take all necessary measures in the time limits prescribed by the Decision to recover the illegal aid from the beneficiaries that received it. 

The Commission decision – ordering recovery to the amount of €338 million – itself was challenged before the General Court, which dismissed the actions (Case T-Case T-139/09 France v Commission, Case T-243/09 Fedecom v Commission and Case T-328/09 Producteurs de légumes de France v Commission). The GC finding was not appealed further, but France nevertheless France only initiated the procedure for the recovery of the aid in May 2011 – some two years after the expiry of the Commission’s four month stimulation in the original decision. In the action for failure to fulfill obligations, the CJEU also noted that France did not establish that implementation of the decision was absolutely impossible to carry out; even if – as France argued – some of the POs had ‘disappeared’ through mergers, etc (recalling that the aid started in 2002, it’s not really any wonder) it failed to show that such recovery was off the cards. 

Sounding less than convinced by France’s arguments, the CJEU finding that there was a failure under Article 288 , the CJEU brings the rest that the ruling must be complied with without delay, at pain of further action seeking penalties.

 

 Links

Tags

Über

Lexxion Publisher

Established in 2002, Lexxion offers professional journals, books, and events closely related to legal practice. Lexxion’s products cover topics such as Competition law, State aid law, Public Procurement, Public-Private Partnerships, EU Funds, Food Law, Chemical law and Climate Law at the European level. In 2013 we have launched the State Aid Uncovered blog as a Lexxion imprint, in 2018 the CoRe Blog followed.

Ähnliche Beiträge

03. Dez 2015
Guest State Aid Blog von Emanuela Matei
forest

The Interpretation of Conflicting Norms regarding the Validity of State Aid Infolding Contracts Must Be Consistent with the Safeguard of Individual Rights Created by EU State Aid Law (C 505/14, Klausner)

The following blog post is another contributory piece by Emanuela Matei, Associate Researcher at the Centre of European Legal Studies, Bucharest. Matei holds a Juris Master in European Business Law (Lund University, June 2012), a Magister legum (Lund University, June 2010) and a BSc in Economics & Business Administration (Lund University, June 2009). We are very glad to welcome her […]
16. Jan 2015
Guest State Aid Blog von Emma Linklater
Lady Justice

In Brief: Case C-518/13 Eventech and Case T-1/12 France v Commission

A quick look at the two new rulings this week. This post gives a preliminary overview of the two new judgments this week (more in depth posts with analysis will be online soon!): On Wednesday 14th January the CJEU passed its ruling in the hotly awaited Eventech case (Case C-518/13), while a day later the General Court gave its word on […]