In Brief: Case T-58/13, Club Hotel Loutraki AE and Others v Commission (judgment of 08.01.2015)

hotel pool
On Thursday the 8th January the GC dismissed all four pleas in the action for annulment of the Commission Decision finding that the exclusive rights granted to operate 35 000 Video Lottery Terminals and 13 games of chance were not State aid.
The case is can be accessed here (English and French versions currently available) and the press release here.Background to the case


On the 1st of December 2011 the Greek authorities notified the Commission about two measures granted in favour of the football results forecasting body, OPAP. These gave OPAP (1) an exclusive licence to operate 35 000 Video Lottery Terminals for a period of 10 years, upon payment of €560 million (the ‘VLT agreement’) and (2) a prolongation of the rights already granted to operate 13 games of chance for a period of a further 10 years. This prolongation was contained in an Addendum to the VLT agreement and was conditional on OPAP paying (i) a €375 million lump sum and (ii) a levy of 5% of the gross gaming revenues from the games concerned for the period from 13 October 2020 to 12 October 2030.

Club Hotel Loutraki AE and other applicants filed a complaint to the Commission on the 4th April 2012, alleging that the VLT agreement granted State aid incompatible with the internal market because the Greek State would have gotten a better price if it had granted more than one licence to operate the VLTs and decided the grant by way of an international tender. Further, OPAP’s profits were higher because of the exclusive operation than if it operated on the market with providers licenced to operate the VLTs in free competition.

On the 3rd of October 2012 the Commission adopted Decision C(2012) 6777 final on State aid SA.33988 (2011/N), finding that in granting the rights there was no advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1). This was because the set-up left OPAP only with a minimum return, as determined by looking at the net value of the VLT agreement and the Addendum, taking into account a reasonable market return, and comparing these with the money paid. The Commission’s decision contained both joint and separate assessments of the agreement and Addendum. The commission also looked at studies undertaken by the Greek authortities based on sales projections to calculate the net present values of the agreement and Addendum.

The Commission found that for the addendum the amount paid by OPAP was higher than its net present value, but that for the VLT agreement the value was much higher than €560 million, which was to OPAP’s advantage. In communications between the greek authorities and the Commission it was agreed that OPAP would pay an extra l levy on the gross gaming revenues from the operation of VLTs. The purpose of this levy was to lower the net present value of the VLT to under €560 million.

Do you know we also publish a journal on State aid?

EStAL banner
The European State Aid Law Quarterly is available online and in print, and our subscribers benefit from a reduced price for our events.


With this readjustment, OPAP would ‘pay the Greek State a higher amount than the cumulated values of the exclusive rights granted by the VLT Agreement and the Addendum (including a reasonable return for OPAP)’(para 18). The notified measures therefore did not, in the Commission’s opinion, confer an advantage and could not constitute State aid.

The applicants sought the annulment of the Commission’s decision before the GC, claiming that the Commission:

(1) misused its power by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU;

(2) failed to state reasons and infringed the right to good administration;

(3) infringed the right to effective judicial protection and;

(4) did not correctly assess the advantage for OPAP, constituting an error of law.


The General Court’s ruling


The General Court dismissed all four pleas.

Concerning the first plea (paras 33-64), the Court recalled that the Commission is free to accept commitments in diaglogue with the State. Such an approach does not necessarily mean that the Commission has established that there were serious difficulties necessitating the initiation of the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU. Failing to instigate a formal investigation was not in this case a misuse of power because there were no serious difficulties faced by the Commission.

Dealing with the second and third pleas together (paras 65-79), the Court found that leaving out economic data in the non-confidential version of the decision did not prevent the applicants from understanding the Commission’s reasoning nor did it prevent effective judicial protection by preventing the Court from exercising judicial review. The Commission’s reasoning is clear with a set criterion and methodology that can be followed even from the non-confidential version. Further, the applicants themselves failed to identify why the omitted data was of relevance or explain its importance.

Lastly, the fourth plea was also rejected (paras 79-97) because the applicants failed to demonstrate that the Commission committed an error of law by assessing the VLT Agreement and the Addendum jointly. The decision does not purport that the two measures relate to distinct markets, contrary to the allegations of the applicant, and the Court recalls that, a definition of the relevant market to determine whether there is an advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU, a ‘thorough and prior analysis of the market concerned is not necessary’ (para 88). Further, because the VLT agreement an the Addendum were adopted at the same time – even if they cover different periods – ‘the Commission was therefore entitled to consider that the two notified measures were part of a single privatisation transaction, that they took place within the same economic context and that it was therefore appropriate and necessary to consider them jointly, in the context of a single notification.’ (para 92)



Case: Case T-58/13, Club Hotel Loutraki AE and Others v Commission, 08.01.2015.
Paragraphs: 99
Sector/Area: Lotteries
State of alleged aid: Greece
Notification: 01.12.2011
COM Decision: 03.10.2012
Application: 29.01.2013
Application to GC: just under 24 months





Emma Linklater

Zusammenhängende Posts

09. Feb 2021
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
The State Acting as a Regulator - StateAidHub blogpost6 NL gambling

The State Acting as a Regulator

When the state acts as a regulator, it does not have to charge a licence fee that maximises its revenue. Introduction Governments can influence the allocation of resources with at least three instruments: subsidisation, taxation and regulation. All three may contain State aid; if subsidies are selective, if taxes allow for exemptions and if regulation involves charges which are not […]
09. Jan 2018
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
Structural Disadvantages and Regional Aid - StateAidHub blogpost35 port concessions

Structural Disadvantages and Regional Aid

Aid that seeks to neutralise a structural disadvantage still confers an advantage. Aid that seeks to remedy market failure is selective. State aid that is compatible with the internal market must be necessary to achieve an objective of the Treaty and be capable of incentivising a change in the behaviour of the recipient undertakings.   Introduction On 13 December 2017, […]
21. Nov 2017
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
i) Transfer of State Resources, ii) Non-recovery of Incompatible Aid, iii) Primacy of Agricultural Policy over Competition Policy - 21.11.State resources State control

i) Transfer of State Resources, ii) Non-recovery of Incompatible Aid, iii) Primacy of Agricultural Policy over Competition Policy

Private resources that come under the control of a public authority become state resources. The only defence for not recovering incompatible aid is absolute impossibility. Agricultural policy objectives take precedence over those of competition policy. Introduction This article reviews a case involving transfer of state resources and a case concerning failure to recovery of incompatible State aid. It also draws […]
18. Apr 2016
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
Who is Aided when a Bank is Resolved? - m 30 1

Who is Aided when a Bank is Resolved?

Bank resolution may involve State aid. However, the depositors do not normally benefit from State aid, nor do the buyers of the viable assets, if they pay a market price. Any aid normally goes to the remaining, non-performing, assets that are eventually liquidated.   Introduction The new bank resolution regime that came into force on 1 January 2016 aims to […]
03. Dez 2015
Guest State Aid Blog von Emanuela Matei

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 […]
24. Sep 2015
Guest State Aid Blog von Gian Marco Galletti
steel construction

How Reasonable The Private Investor May Be Assumed To Be? Corsica Ferries France

The following article summary is a contributory piece by Gian Marco Galletti. The full piece was published in the Common Market Law Review. Galletti is working as a researcher at the Dickson Poon School of Law since 2013. He is currently working on a PhD in European law under the supervision of Prof. Andrea Biondi. He holds an LLB with […]
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 […]
09. Dez 2014
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
A Surprising Interpretation of the Concept of Selectivity - A Surprising Interpretation of the Concept of Selectivity

A Surprising Interpretation of the Concept of Selectivity

Tax measures are selective when they constitute an exception or deviation from the normal or common system of taxation. In addition, the exception must be open only to a pre-defined category of undertakings. IntroductionOften, the decisive element in whether a tax measure constitutes State aid is the existence of selectivity. On 7 November 2014, the General Court ruled on two […]
28. Nov 2014
Guest State Aid Blog von Emma Linklater

Case T-512/11 Ryanair : Commission’s ATT Ireland Decision Partly Annulled (ATT Act I)

On Tuesday (25.11.2014) the General Court delighted the StateAidHub team by dishing out a shiny new ruling just in time for our launch date. Here’s a quick first look at the ruling. This post takes a preliminary look at Case T-512/11 Ryanair Ltd v Commission.This is only one of the appeals being brought against the Commission’s dabblings with the Irish Air […]
11. Nov 2014
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Reduction of Property Taxes and Electricity Tariffs

Relief from property tax is State aid even when the user of the property is involved in defence contracts. Providing cheaper electricity to a few manufacturers cannot be considered to be an appropriate measure for regional development. Introduction This article summarises several judgments which were delivered in October 2014. They concern a tax exemption in Spain and reduction of electricity […]