“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2024 |
| Outros Autores: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | eng |
| Título da fonte: | Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2024.16068 |
Resumo: | In case of unlawful State aid, Art. 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 guarantees the possibility to submit a complaint to “any interested party”. The preamble to Regulation 2015/1589 even encourages the submission of such claims. Interested parties are defined by Art. 1(h) of this Regulation as “any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations”. The fact that an entity belongs to one of the categories indicated in this provision (e.g., beneficiary or trade associations) does not determine its status of interested party – a key factor is proving that the interests of a particular entity have been affected by the (potentially) unlawful aid. The concept has been developed in case law. Among many detailed issues in judgements delivered either on the basis of Regulation 2015/1589 or the preceding Regulation 659/1999, the CJEU has discussed conditions under which a status of interested party could be attributed to undertakings in no direct competition with a recipient of State aid. Special attention is drawn to a beneficiary of State aid as a potential “interested party” – this category of entities is mentioned in Art. 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589, but a form that needs to be used in order to submit a complaint does not list a beneficiary as a subject entitled to submitting a complaint. The article presents a review of CJEU cases in this regard, and aims at defining the current state of interpretation of “interested party” that opens a gate for particular entities to submit a complaint. |
| id |
RCAP_d9a2e28e2c3759d5753d7cc48ebbba60 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/16068 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
| network_name_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository_id_str |
https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160 |
| spelling |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselawIn case of unlawful State aid, Art. 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 guarantees the possibility to submit a complaint to “any interested party”. The preamble to Regulation 2015/1589 even encourages the submission of such claims. Interested parties are defined by Art. 1(h) of this Regulation as “any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations”. The fact that an entity belongs to one of the categories indicated in this provision (e.g., beneficiary or trade associations) does not determine its status of interested party – a key factor is proving that the interests of a particular entity have been affected by the (potentially) unlawful aid. The concept has been developed in case law. Among many detailed issues in judgements delivered either on the basis of Regulation 2015/1589 or the preceding Regulation 659/1999, the CJEU has discussed conditions under which a status of interested party could be attributed to undertakings in no direct competition with a recipient of State aid. Special attention is drawn to a beneficiary of State aid as a potential “interested party” – this category of entities is mentioned in Art. 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589, but a form that needs to be used in order to submit a complaint does not list a beneficiary as a subject entitled to submitting a complaint. The article presents a review of CJEU cases in this regard, and aims at defining the current state of interpretation of “interested party” that opens a gate for particular entities to submit a complaint.Universidade Católica Editora2024-04-29info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2024.16068https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2024.16068Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 8 No 1 (2024)Market and Competition Law Review; v. 8 n. 1 (2024)2184-000810.34632/mclawreview.2024.8.1reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAPenghttps://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/16068https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/16068/15543Copyright (c) 2024 Agata Jurkowska-Gomulka, Artur Salbertopen accessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessJurkowska-Gomulka, AgataSalbert, Artur2024-07-03T11:01:20Zoai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/16068Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T16:36:51.659226Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| title |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| spellingShingle |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw Jurkowska-Gomulka, Agata |
| title_short |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| title_full |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| title_fullStr |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| title_full_unstemmed |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| title_sort |
“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw |
| author |
Jurkowska-Gomulka, Agata |
| author_facet |
Jurkowska-Gomulka, Agata Salbert, Artur |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Salbert, Artur |
| author2_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Jurkowska-Gomulka, Agata Salbert, Artur |
| description |
In case of unlawful State aid, Art. 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 guarantees the possibility to submit a complaint to “any interested party”. The preamble to Regulation 2015/1589 even encourages the submission of such claims. Interested parties are defined by Art. 1(h) of this Regulation as “any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations”. The fact that an entity belongs to one of the categories indicated in this provision (e.g., beneficiary or trade associations) does not determine its status of interested party – a key factor is proving that the interests of a particular entity have been affected by the (potentially) unlawful aid. The concept has been developed in case law. Among many detailed issues in judgements delivered either on the basis of Regulation 2015/1589 or the preceding Regulation 659/1999, the CJEU has discussed conditions under which a status of interested party could be attributed to undertakings in no direct competition with a recipient of State aid. Special attention is drawn to a beneficiary of State aid as a potential “interested party” – this category of entities is mentioned in Art. 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589, but a form that needs to be used in order to submit a complaint does not list a beneficiary as a subject entitled to submitting a complaint. The article presents a review of CJEU cases in this regard, and aims at defining the current state of interpretation of “interested party” that opens a gate for particular entities to submit a complaint. |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2024-04-29 |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2024.16068 https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2024.16068 |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2024.16068 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/16068 https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/16068/15543 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2024 Agata Jurkowska-Gomulka, Artur Salbert open access info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2024 Agata Jurkowska-Gomulka, Artur Salbert open access |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Católica Editora |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Católica Editora |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 8 No 1 (2024) Market and Competition Law Review; v. 8 n. 1 (2024) 2184-0008 10.34632/mclawreview.2024.8.1 reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia instacron:RCAAP |
| instname_str |
FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| instacron_str |
RCAAP |
| institution |
RCAAP |
| reponame_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| collection |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
info@rcaap.pt |
| _version_ |
1833596056883953664 |