“Interested parties” versus unlawful State aid. State of play in CJEU’s caselaw

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Jurkowska-Gomulka, Agata
Data de Publicação: 2024
Outros Autores: Salbert, Artur
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