Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:41:46.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Methods Used to Check Compensation for Additional Costs Generated by a Policy of Selling Below Cost in the Door-to-Door Parcel Delivery Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Szymon Gębski
Szymon Gębski*
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Law Department,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

  1. 1. The Commission is not entitled to assume that State resources constitute an advantage when it fails to examine whether: (i) the total amount of those resources exceeds the total amount of the net additional costs incurred by an undertaking providing an SGEI; (ii) that undertaking has other net additional costs associated with the provision of an SGEI for which it has the right to claim compensation.

  2. 2. The use of a method different from that arising from Altmark Trans is justified only when the Commission is prevented, for objective reasons, from undertaking an examination of the information provided by a Member State.

  3. 3. Even if the General Court is wrong in law when it examines information that was not subject to any analysis in the Commission’s decision, this did not affect the validity of its foregoing finding on the illegality of the contested decision (author’s headnotes).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 616 - 620
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Commission Decision 2001/354/EC of 20 March 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/35.141 – Deutsche Post AG), OJ 2001 L 125.

2 Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG, OJ 2002 L 247.

3 Ibid., paras. 16–20.

4 Ibid., paras. 82–86, 88.

5 Ibid., para. 87.

6 T-266/02 Deutsche Post AG v. Commission [2008] ECR II-01233, paras. 78–82.

7 Ibid., paras. 84–85.

8 C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, and Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht [2003] ECR I-7747.

9 Deutsche Post AG v. Commission, paras. 93–94.

10 Deutsche Post AG v. Commission, paras. 102–109.

11 C-399/08 P Commission v. Deutsche Post AG [2010], not yet published, paras. 42–44.

12 Ibid., paras. 45–46.

13 Ibid., paras. 54–58.

14 Ibid., paras. 85–87.

15 Ibid., para. 75.

16 Ibid., para. 77.

17 Deutsche Post AG v. Commission, para. 87.

18 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in C-399/08 P Commission v. Deutsche Post AG [2010], not yet published, paras. 70–71.

19 The requirements relating to compensation put forward in the third and fourth conditions of the Altmark Trans necessitate a precise calculation of the costs and a review of their allocation. The caselaw subsequent to Altmark Trans offers some clarification of those conditions (see inter alia T-289/03 BUPA and Others v. Commission [2008] ECR II-81). In Article 5 of Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, the Commission stated that the amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit on any own capital necessary for discharging those obligations.

20 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Commission v. Deutsche Post AG, para. 63.

21 T-106/95 Fédération française des sociétés d‘assurances (FFSA), Union des sociétés étrangères d‘assurances (USEA), Groupe des assurances mutuelles agricoles (Groupama), Fédération nationale des syndicats d‘agents généraux d‘assurances (FNSAGA), Fédération française des courtiers d‘assurances et de réassurances (FCA) and Bureau international des producteurs d‘assurances et de réassurances (BIPAR) v. Commission [1997] ECR II-00229, paras. 184– 186.

22 Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P Chronopost and Others v. UFEX and Others (Chronopost I) [2003] ECR I-6993, para. 40.

23 Commission Decision NN 25/2007 of 12 September 2007 Germany Deutsche Post AG, OJ C 4144, paras. 79–81.

24 T-421/07, Action brought on 22 November 2007 – Deutsche Post v. Commission, OJ C 22.

25 T-570/08 Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 Deutsche Post v. Commission, OJ C 234.

26 Joined Cases C-463/10 P and C-475/10 P Deutsche Post AG and Germany v. Commission [2011], not yet reported.

27 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Commission v. Deutsche Post AG, paras. 116–117.