Reports of Cases
published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)
Subject-matter
Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Kosice a.s v European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission’s Decision C(2006) 2082 final, of 7 June 2006, concerning aid granted by Slovakia for Frucona Košice in the form of a write-off of a tax debt by the competent tax office in the framework of a court-supervised collective insolvency procedure (State Aid No C 25/2005, ex NN/2005), in so far as that decision declares that measure incompatible with the common market and orders Slovakia to recover the aid in its entirety
Systematic classification scheme
1.
|
|
4 Internal policy of the European Union
4.09 State aid
4.09.01 Definition of aid
4.09.01.03 Advantage conferred on an undertaking
4.09.01.03.00 General
|
|
|
4 Internal policy of the European Union
4.09 State aid
4.09.01 Definition of aid
4.09.01.03 Advantage conferred on an undertaking
4.09.01.03.01 Private investor/private creditor test
4.09.01.03.01.04 Recovery of debts
|
|
|
4 Internal policy of the European Union
4.09 State aid
4.09.01 Definition of aid
4.09.01.03 Advantage conferred on an undertaking
4.09.01.03.01 Private investor/private creditor test
4.09.01.03.01.04 Recovery of debts
|
|
|
4 Internal policy of the European Union
4.09 State aid
4.09.03 Exceptions to the prohibition of aid
4.09.03.04 Commission discretion
|
|
|
3 Legal proceedings
3.02 Actions for annulment
3.02.00 General
|
Citations of case-law or legislation
References in grounds of judgment
Operative part
Opinion
-
C2004/178/01
: point 101
-
C2004/313/01
: point 101
-
EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 87
: point 54
-
EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 87
-P1 : points 1, 41, 43, 50, 55, 57, 62, 70, 97 - 100
-
EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 88
: point 54
-
EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 88
-P2 : point 59
-
EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 88
-P3 : points 59, 62
-
EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 89
: point 50
-
TFEU, Article 108
-P3 : point 57
-
TFEU, Article 256
-P1 : points 25, 107, 116
-
TFEU, Article 264
-L1 : points 93, 94
-
TFEU, Article 266
-L1 : point 93
-
TFEU - Protocol No 3
-A36 : point 34
-
TFEU - Protocol No 3
-A51L1 : point 107
-
TFEU - Protocol No 3
-A53L1 : point 34
-
TFEU - Protocol No 3
-A58L1 : point 25
-
TEU, Article 261
: point 93
-
Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991)
-A112 : point 24
-
Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991)
-A112P1LC : points 25, 107
-
Regulation 69/2001
: point 50
-
Regulation 1998/2006
: point 50
-
Decision 2007/254
: points 21 - 121
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -70/88
: point 92
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -303/88
: point 1
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/93
: point 78
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -39/94
: point 43
-
Court of Justice - Order C -19/95
: point 25
-
Court of Justice - Order C -173/95
: point 25
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -259/96
: point 34
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -342/96
: points 43, 44
-
Court of Justice - Opinion C -256/97
: points 46, 48
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -256/97
: points 3, 43 - 52, 57, 60
-
Court of Justice - Opinion C -480/98
: point 61
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -83/98
: point 70
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -164/98
: points 92, 98
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -449/98
: point 34
-
General Court - Judgment T -152/99
: points 44, 46, 63, 70, 71, 78
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00
: point 107
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/00
: point 41
-
Court of Justice - Order C -323/00
: point 80
-
Court of Justice - Opinion C -276/02
: points 1, 61, 66, 72
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/02
: point 25
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -442/03
: point 92
-
General Court - Judgment T -68/03
: points 46, 70, 78
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04
: point 116
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -227/04
: point 25
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -525/04
: points 60, 78
-
Court of Justice - Opinion C -413/06
: point 62
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/06
: point 92
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -167/06
: point 36
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -341/06
: points 41, 115
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/06
: points 115, 116
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/06
: points 42, 70, 92, 98
-
Court of Justice - Opinion C -441/07
: point 83
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07
: point 34
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -290/07
: points 78 - 80
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -431/07
: point 94
-
General Court - Judgment T -11/07
: points 21 - 121
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -169/08
: points 41, 42
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08
: point 34
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/08
: point 107
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -67/09
: point 25
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -71/09
: point 107
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -352/09
: point 116
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -521/09
: points 25, 115, 116
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -539/09
: point 92
-
General Court - Order T -454/09
: point 25
-
Court of Justice - Opinion C -275/10
: point 55
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -124/10
: points 1, 42, 43, 58, 59, 72
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -452/10
: points 42, 70
-
Court of Justice - Judgment C -628/10
: point 94
Dates
Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings
Date of the Opinion
Date of the hearing
Information not available
Date of delivery
24/01/2013
References
Publication in the Official Journal
Application: OJ C 130 from 30.04.2011, p.12
Judgment: OJ C 71 from 09.03.2013, p.2
Name of the parties
Frucona Košice v Commission
Notes on Academic Writings
- Arhel, Pierre: Activité des juridictions de l'Union européenne en droit de la concurrence (Septembre 2012) (1ère partie). CJUE, 6 sept. 2012, no C-73/11 P, conclusions de l'avocat général sur l'affaire Frucona Košice c/ Commission, Petites affiches. La Loi / Le Quotidien juridique 2012 nº 256 p.4 (FR)
- Idot, Laurence: Existence d'un avantage et critère du créancier privé en économie de marché. Pour l'application du critère du créancier privé en économie de marché, la Commission doit procéder à une appréciation globale tenant compte de tous les éléments pertinents, ce qui inclut dans l'hypothèse du recours à une procédure collective, la prise en compte de la durée des différentes procédures susceptibles d'être envisagées, Europe 2013 Mars Comm. nº 3 p.31 (FR)
- Egger, Alexander: EuGH: Rechtsmittel - Erlass von 65 % einer Steuerschuld im Rahmen eines Insolvenzverfahrens - Entscheidung, mit der die Beihilfe für mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt unvereinbar erklärt und ihre Rückforderung angeordnet wird - Kriterium des privaten Gläubigers - Grenzen der gerichtlichen Überprüfung - Ersetzung der Begründung in der streitigen Entscheidung durch die eigene Begründung des Gerichts - Offensichtlicher Beurteilungsfehler - Verfälschung von Beweisen, Zeitschrift für Beihilfenrecht 2013 p.58-59 (DE)
- Nucara, Alessandro: In Search of the Holy Grail of a Hypothetical Private Creditor, European State Aid Law Quarterly 2014 p.80-84 (EN)
- Idot, Laurence: Remises fiscales dans le cadre d'un concordat et critère du créancier privé, Europe 2017 novembre nº 11 p.42 (FR)
Procedural Analysis Information
Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Information not available
Subject-matter
Provisions of national law referred to
Information not available
Provisions of international law referred to
Information not available
Procedure and result
- Actions for annulment
- Appeals : application granted
Formation of the Court
deuxième chambre (Cour)
Judge-Rapporteur
Arabadjiev
Advocate General
Kokott
Language(s) of the Case
Language(s) of the Opinion