Deutsche Post v Commission is a 2011 pair of joined cases, C 463/10 P and C 475/10 P, before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the scope for judicial review in information injunctions in state aid cases.[1] The opinion, handed down 13 October 2011, interprets Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to mean that any official act on the part of any body, office or agency of the European Union that produces binding legal effects affecting the interests of a natural or legal person is open to challenge before the Court of Justice.[2] Overruling the General Court, the opinion thus strengthens the right to judicial review of administrative acts.
The pair of cases is part of a cluster of disputes sometimes referred to as the "Deutsche Post saga" in the academic community. [3][4]
Facts
Deutsche Post and Germany claimed annulment of an order by the General Court, which declared inadmissible their actions for annulment of a Commission decision to require Germany provide information on state aid to Deutsche Post. TFEU article 108 required member states to notify the Commission of plans to grant new aid, and to give all necessary information. In 2008 the Commission sent a questionnaire on DP's revenue and costs, and a reminder letter. Germany replied that it would be disproportionate in time and work to give the information after 1994. The Commission said the information had to be given in 20 days. Deutsche Post and Germany brought an action for annulment and the Commission argued it was not an 'act', and this was upheld by the General Court. It said that an injunction for information had no sanction, so was not an 'act' open to challenge.
Judgment
The Third Chamber held that the Commission had done an act, and therefore an action for annulment could be brought. It produced independent legal effects.
36 According to consistent case-law, developed in the context of actions for annulment brought by Member States or institutions, any measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their form, which are intended to have binding legal effects are regarded as acts open to challenge, within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU .... The case-law further shows that a Member State, such as the applicant in Case C‑475/10 P, may admissibly bring an action for annulment of a measure producing binding legal effects without having to demonstrate that it has an interest in bringing proceedings....
37 Where the action for annulment against an act adopted by an institution is brought by a natural or legal person, the Court of Justice had repeatedly held that the action lies only if the binding legal effects of that act are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position (see, in particular, IBM v Commission, paragraph 9; Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, paragraph 29; Case C‑322/09 P NDSHT v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 45).
38 It must, however, be emphasised that the case-law cited in the paragraph above was developed in the context of actions brought before the EU judicature by natural or legal persons against measures of which they were the addressees. Where, as in the case giving rise to the order in Deutsche Post v Commission, an action for annulment is brought by a non-privileged applicant against a measure that has not been addressed to it, the requirement that the binding legal effects of the measure being challenged must be capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position overlaps with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
[...]
45 It follows from the above that a decision taken pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 is intended to produce binding legal effects within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 36 of this judgment, and therefore constitutes an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU.
[...]
53 Next, the case-law shows that an intermediate measure is also not capable of forming the subject-matter of an action if it is established that the illegality attaching to that measure can be relied on in support of an action against the final decision for which it represents a preparatory step. In such circumstances, the action brought against the decision terminating the procedure will provide sufficient judicial protection (IBM v Commission, paragraph 12; Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie and AKZO Chemie UK v Commission [1986] ECR 1965, paragraph 19; Case C-400/99 Italy v Commission [2001] ECR I 7303, paragraph 63).
54 However, if that latter condition is not satisfied, it will be considered that the intermediate measure – independently of whether the latter expresses a provisional opinion of the institution concerned – produces independent legal effects and must therefore be capable of forming the subject-matter of an action for annulment....
55 in this case, it must be held that an information under Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 produces independent legal effects.
[...]
71 As for whether Deutsche Post is individually concerned by the act at issue, it should be recalled that, according to consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and, by virtue of those factors, distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.
[...]
73 in that respect, it should be noted that the fact that the act at issue is not addressed to Deutsche Post is irrelevant for assessing whether that undertaking is individually concerned by that measure, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
74 Next, it must be noted that the information injunction refers to a procedure for examining a State aid measure from which Deutsche Post is alleged to have benefited. The information concerned by the act at issue concern only Deutsche Post. The latter is thus individually concerned by that measure for the purposes of the case-law cited in paragraph 71 of this judgment.[excessivequote]
↑ Downie, Gordon (2012). "Scope for Judicial Review of Information Injunctions in State Aid Cases: Annotation on the Judgement of the Court of 13 October 2011 in joined cases C 463/10 P and C 475/10 P, Deutsche Post v Commission". European State Aid Law Quarterly. 11 (4): 821–824, 821. doi:10.21552/ESTAL/2012/4/317.
↑ Frattini, Alessandro (2019). "Extension of Formal Investigation Procedure and Obligation to State Reasons". European State Aid Law Quarterly. 18 (3): 372–376, 374. doi:10.21552/estal/2019/3/16. S2CID211395369.
↑ Essers, Maurice (21 January 2016). "Redactioneel". Tijdschrift voor Staatssteun. 2015 (4). Retrieved 17 February 2024.
Related Research Articles
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.
In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (1990) C-106/89 was a decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the indirect effect of European Community law, now European Union law. It established that the courts of European Union member states have a duty to interpret national legislation in the light of unimplemented European Union directives.
International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case of the European Court of Justice, in which it was held that there is a positive right to strike, but the exercise of that right could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49. Often called The Rosella case or the Viking case, it is relevant to all labour law within the European Union. The decision has been criticised for the Court's inarticulate line of reasoning, and its disregard of fundamental human rights.
The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.
Commission v Anic Partecipazioni SpA (1999) C-49/92 is an EU competition law case, concerning the requirements for finding that there has been a cartel, or unlawful collusion, within TFEU article 101.
O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co OHG v Commission (2006) T-328/03 is an EU competition law case, concerning the requirements for a restriction of competition to be found under TFEU article 101.
Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE is a case decided by the European Court of Justice which deals with the concepts of 'worker' and 'social assistance' under European Union law.
Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (2008) C-402/05 is a case concerning the hierarchy between international law and the general principles of EU law. It is also known as Kadi I to distinguish from a later related case, Kadi II (2013).
Commission v Italy (2009) C-110/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union. This case is commonly referred to as 'Italian Trailers', and is predominantly known for establishing the 'market access test'.
Commission v France (1997) C-265/95 is an EU law case concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.
Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (2012) C-544/10 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.
Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (2002) C-50/00 P is an EU law case, concerning a judicial review of a regulation adopted by the European Union. In this case, the European Court of Justice declined to accept the preliminary opinion of the Advocate General, Francis Jacobs.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council (2013) C-583/11 is an EU law case, concerning judicial review in the European Union.
R v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2010) C-58/08 is an EU law case relevant for UK enterprise law, concerning telecommunications.
Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete [2010] ECR, Case C-108/09 is an EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law. The Hungarian legislation regarding the online sale of contact lenses was considered with regards to whether it was necessary for the protection of public health, and it was concluded that this could have been done by less restrictive measures. Despite the internal measure in this case being categorised as a selling arrangement, which would generally be determined by the discrimination test established in Keck, the Court went on to use a market access test, as per Italian Trailers. Thus, this case is crucial in the recent development of the tests for determining measures equaling equivalent effect.
References
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
