CVRIA - SÚHRN konaní: máj 2019

Právne Noviny vám v spolupráci so Súdnym dvorom Európskej únie prinášajú priebežný súhrn konaní a rozhodnutí Súdneho dvora EÚ.

Redakcia 21. 05. 2019 4 min.

Court of Justice

Tuesday 21st May

Judgment in Case C-235/17 Commission v Hungary

Deprivation of foreign farmers of their right of usufruct on agricultural land in Hungary

There will be a press release for this judgment

By judgment of 6 March 2018 in the SEGRO and Horváth cases, the Court ruled that depriving persons of their right of usufruct if they do not have a close family tie with the owner of agricultural land in Hungary is contrary to EU law. The Court considered that such a measure, which was allegedly meant to rectify irregularities consisting in the circumvention by foreign farmers of the prohibition for them to acquire agricultural land in Hungary, constitutes an unjustified indirectly discriminatory restriction on the principle of free movement of capital.

Now the Commissions has asked the Court to formally declare that, by adopting the legislation found to be incompatible with EU law in the aforementioned judgment, Hungary had breached the principles of free movement of capital and of freedom of establishment as well as the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU relating to the protection of the right to property.

General Court

An appeal may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decisions of the General Court

Wednesday 22nd May                                                     

Judgment in Case T-791/16 Real Madrid v Commission

Illegal State aid provided to Spanish football clubs

By decision of July 2016 the Commission set out that Spain, in breach of EU competition rules, had provided State aid to seven football clubs, namely, Real Madrid, Atlético Bilbao, FC Barcelona, Atlético Osasuna, Valencia, Elche and Hercules.

As for Real Madrid, Atlético Bilbao, FC Barcelona and Atlético Osasuna, the State aid consisted in corporate tax privileges resulting from their being treated as non-profit organisations, which pay a 5% lower tax rate on profit than limited liability companies, the corporate form in which other clubs are operated.

The Commission also established that the four clubs concerned benefitted from this lower tax rate during over twenty years and ordered Spain to recover from them the tax benefits in question. Nevertheless, the Commission estimated that the amounts that needed to be recovered were limited and would not exceed € 5 million for any of the clubs concerned.

The majority of the clubs in question – including Real Madrid, Atlético Bilbao and FC Barcelona – have challenged the Commission’s decision before the General Court. Today will be delivered the judgment in Real Madrid’s case.

Thursday 23rd May

Judgment in Case T-107/17 Steinhoff & others v European Central Bank (ECB)

ECB’s liability for damage suffered by investors as a result of the debt relief provided to Greece in 2012

There will be a press release for this judgment

Following the outburst of the financial and economic crisis in 2009, Greece’s public debt reached record highs and became unmanageable. For this reason, Greece entered into negotiations with its creditors in order that these latter provide it with a debt relief. A draft version of the agreement that Greece envisaged to conclude with its creditors was sent for opinion to the ECB, which did not raise any objection to it despite the agreement having been intended, in case where a given majority of creditors decided to grant a debt relief, to apply to all creditors including those opposing the adopted relief.

Subsequently, creditors holding 85.8% of the securities representing Greece’s public debt accepted the Southern European country’s offer regarding the reducing of its public debt, which, as mentioned above, resulted in all creditors becoming bound by this decision.

In the case at hand, creditors not having approved Greece’s offer have brought an action before the General Court against the ECB claiming that this latter is liable for the damage they allege to have suffered by reason of the debt relief at issue because of this institution having failed in its aforementioned opinion to draw Greece’s attention to the allegedly illegal nature of the envisaged debt relief.

Zdroj: CURIA