- 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
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 1998.#Fédération française des sociétés d'assurances, Union des sociétés étrangères d'assurances, Groupe des assurances mutuelles agricoles, Fédération nationale des syndicats d'agents généraux d'assurances, Fédération française des courtiers d'assurances et de réassurances and Bureau international des producteurs d'assurances et de réassurances v Commission of the European Communities.#State aid - Appeal - Tax concessions granted to La Poste - Insurance products.#Case C-174/97 P.
ECLI:EU:C:1998:130
61997CO0174
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
Avis juridique important
61997O0174
European Court reports 1998 Page I-01303
Summary
Keywords
1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous appraisal of the facts - Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)
2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
3 State aid - Prohibition - Derogations - Aid granted to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest - Conditions - Commission's discretion
(EC Treaty, Arts 90(2) and 92)
Summary
4 According to Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.
5 Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court, it fails to satisfy the requirements under Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and is therefore clearly inadmissible. In reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which, under Article 49 of the Statute, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.
6 The grant of State aid may, under Article 90(2) of the Treaty, escape the prohibition laid down in Article 92 thereof provided that the sole purpose of the aid in question is to offset the additional costs incurred in performing the particular task assigned to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest and that the grant of the aid is necessary in order for that undertaking to be able to perform its public service obligations under conditions of economic equilibrium.
In the case of a tax advantage granted to an undertaking entrusted with public service tasks, but which also has activities in competitive sectors, the requirements laid down by Article 90(2) of the Treaty cannot have been disregarded where it has been concluded that the possibility of a cross-subsidy taking place is excluded to the extent to which the aid in question remains lower than the additional costs generated by the particular task referred to in that provision, that is to say, where the condition has been laid down that the tax advantage should not exceed the additional costs engendered by the public service.