- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-594/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 September 2020 — Republic of Austria v European Commission and Others (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Articles 11 and 194 TFEU — Article 1, Article 2(c) and Article 106a(3) of the Euratom Treaty — Planned aid for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (United Kingdom) — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Objective of common interest — Environmental objectives of the European Union — Principle of protection of the environment, ‘polluter pays’ principle, precautionary principle and principle of sustainability — Determination of the economic activity concerned — Market failure — Proportionality of the aid — Operating or investment aid — Determination of the aid elements — Guarantee Notice)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0594
62018CA0594
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
16.11.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 390/3
(Case C-594/18 P) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Articles 11 and 194 TFEU - Article 1, Article 2(c) and Article 106a(3) of the Euratom Treaty - Planned aid for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (United Kingdom) - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Objective of common interest - Environmental objectives of the European Union - Principle of protection of the environment, ‘polluter pays’ principle, precautionary principle and principle of sustainability - Determination of the economic activity concerned - Market failure - Proportionality of the aid - Operating or investment aid - Determination of the aid elements - Guarantee Notice)
(2020/C 390/03)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by G. Hesse, and subsequently by F. Koppensteiner and M. Klamert, acting as Agents, and by H. Kristoferitsch, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and I. Gavrilová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented initially by D. Colas and P. Dodeller, and subsequently by P. Dodeller and T. Stehelin, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by D. Holderer, and subsequently by T. Uri, acting as Agents, and by P. Kinsch, avocat), Hungary (represented by M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent, and P. Nagy, ügyvéd), Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by Z. Lavery and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, A. Robertson QC and T. Johnston, Barrister)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
3.Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.
(1)
OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
ECLI:EU:C:2020:140