Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2016

Whirlpool Europe BV v European Commission

Actions for annulment — State aid — Household appliances — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions — Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure — Lack of individual concern — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility

Case T-118/13


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
15/07/2016 Whirlpool Europe v Commission
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:T:2016:365
22/06/2016 Whirlpool Europe v Commission
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:T:2016:365
22/06/2016 Whirlpool Europe v Commission
Application (OJ)
26/04/2013 Whirlpool Europe v Commission
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
3 Legal proceedings
  3.02 Actions for annulment
    3.02.03 Applications by natural or legal persons
      3.02.03.02 Acts which are of individual concern to them
3 Legal proceedings
  3.02 Actions for annulment
    3.02.03 Applications by natural or legal persons
      3.02.03.03 Acts which are of direct concern to them
3 Legal proceedings
  3.02 Actions for annulment
    3.02.03 Applications by natural or legal persons
      3.02.03.02 Acts which are of individual concern to them
3 Legal proceedings
  3.08 Procedural rules
    3.08.00 General
3 Legal proceedings
  3.02 Actions for annulment
    3.02.03 Applications by natural or legal persons
      3.02.03.02 Acts which are of individual concern to them


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • TFEU, Article 108 -P2 : paragraphs 43 - 45
  • TFEU, Article 108 -P3 : paragraphs 43, 44
  • TFEU, Article 263 -L4 : paragraphs 40, 41
  • Decision 2009/485 : paragraphs 57, 58
  • Decision 2013/283 -C18 : paragraphs 30, 52
  • Decision 2013/283 -C93 : paragraphs 30, 52
  • Decision 2013/283 -C94 : paragraphs 30, 52
  • Decision 2013/283 -C105 : paragraphs 30, 52
  • Decision 2013/283 -C109 : paragraphs 30, 52
  • Regulation 1589/2015 -A01LE : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -25/62 : paragraphs 42, 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -10/68 -N7 : paragraph 46
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -169/84 -N25 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Judgment T -266/94 -N40 : paragraph 37
  • General Court - Order T -358/02 -N33 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Order T -358/02 -N34 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Order T -358/02 -N38 : paragraph 47
  • General Court - Order T -358/02 -N41 : paragraph 47
  • General Court - Order T -358/02 -N43 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/03 -N37 : paragraph 44
  • General Court - Judgment T -388/03 -N49 : paragraph 47
  • General Court - Judgment T -388/03 -N51 : paragraph 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -260/05 -N53 : paragraph 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -260/05 -N60 : paragraph 55
  • General Court - Order T -315/05 -N28 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/06 -N47 : paragraph 46
  • General Court - Judgment T -193/06 -N84 : paragraph 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -319/07 -N29 : paragraph 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -319/07 -N30 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -319/07 -N94 : paragraph 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -319/07 -N95 : paragraph 55
  • General Court - Judgment T -115/09 : paragraphs 7, 8, 31, 57, 58
  • General Court - Order T -198/09 -N25 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Order T -198/09 -N26 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Order T -198/09 -N27 : paragraph 55
  • General Court - Order T -219/09 -N39 : paragraph 49
  • General Court - Judgment T -182/10 -N68 : paragraph 47
  • General Court - Judgment T -362/10 -N55 : paragraph 47
  • General Court - Order T -58/10 -N50 : paragraph 51
  • General Court - Order T -236/10 -N38 : paragraph 58
  • General Court - Judgment T -57/11 -N23 : paragraph 41
  • General Court - Judgment T -57/11 -N34 : paragraph 49
  • General Court - Judgment T -57/11 -N35 : paragraphs 47, 52
  • General Court - Judgment T -57/11 -N36 : paragraph 47
  • General Court - Judgment T -57/11 -N37 : paragraph 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -287/12 : paragraph 28
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -287/12 -N113 : paragraph 52
  • General Court - Order T -187/15 -N18 : paragraph 44

Operative part

Information not available

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 20/02/2013

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

22/06/2016


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 279 from 01.08.2016, p.26

Application: OJ C 141 from 18.05.2013, p.22

Name of the parties

Whirlpool Europe v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Cardonnel, Pascal: Aides d'État - Recevabilité - Affectation individuelle : Le Tribunal de l’Union européenne déclare irrecevable le recours d’un concurrent du bénéficiaire d’une décision de compatibilité modifiée en exécution d’un arrêt antérieur lui ayant donné gain de cause, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 3 p.145-146 (FR)
  2. Daniel, Élise: Irrecevabilité d'un recours portant sur une décision de la Commission en matière d'aides d'État pour défaut de preuve d'une position substantiellement affectée par l'aide visée, Europe 2016 Septembre Comm. nº 8-9 p.19 (FR)
  3. Vuitton, Raphael: Aides à la restructuration - Aide compatible sous conditions - Qualité pour agir : Le Tribunal de l'Union européenne déclare irrecevable le recours introduit par un fabricant d'électroménager contre une décision de la Commission européenne prise à la suite de l'annulation, dans le cadre d'un recours formé par ce même fabricant, d'une décision antérieure concernant la même aide d'État, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 3 p.139-141 (FR)
  4. Staviczky, Péter: Difficulties to Prove Direct Concern for Competitors of State Aid Beneficiaries, European State Aid Law Quarterly 2017 p.77 - 81 (EN)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Competition
  • - State aid

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment : dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility

Formation of the Court

deuxième chambre (Tribunal)

Judge-Rapporteur

Madise

Advocate General

Information not available

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available