- 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-638/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 January 2022 — European Commission v European Food SA and Others (Appeal — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Bilateral Investment Treaty — Arbitration clause — Romania — Accession to the European Union — Repeal of a tax incentives scheme prior to accession — Arbitral award granting payment of damages after accession — European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Competence of the Commission — Application ratione temporis of EU law — Determination of the date at which the right to receive aid is conferred on the beneficiary — Article 19 TEU — Articles 267 and 344 TFEU — Autonomy of EU law)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0638
62019CA0638
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
14.3.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 119/3
(Case C-638/19 P) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Appeal - State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Bilateral Investment Treaty - Arbitration clause - Romania - Accession to the European Union - Repeal of a tax incentives scheme prior to accession - Arbitral award granting payment of damages after accession - European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Competence of the Commission - Application ratione temporis of EU law - Determination of the date at which the right to receive aid is conferred on the beneficiary - Article 19 TEU - Articles 267 and 344 TFEU - Autonomy of EU law)
(2022/C 119/03)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL, Scandic Distilleries SA, Ioan Micula (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, avocat, and by A. Kadri, Solicitor), Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL, West Leasing SRL, formerly West Leasing International SRL (represented by: J. Derenne, D. Vallindas and O. Popescu, avocats), Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent, and subsequently by A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent), Hungary
Interveners in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, R. Kanitz and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: D. Lutostańska, B. Majczyna and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v Commission (T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423);
2.Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal;
3.Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to adjudicate on the pleas and arguments raised before it on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has not given a ruling;
4.Reserves the costs.
* Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
ECLI:EU:C:2022:140