This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0275
Case C-275/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 June 2010 — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam
Case C-275/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 June 2010 — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam
Case C-275/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 June 2010 — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam
OJ C 246, 11.9.2010, p. 18–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.9.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 246/18 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 June 2010 — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam
(Case C-275/10)
()
2010/C 246/30
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Residex Capital IV CV
Defendant: Gemeente Rotterdam
Question referred
Does the provision in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, now Article 108(3) TFEU, mean that, in a case such as the present, where the unlawful aid measure was implemented by granting the lender a guarantee which enabled the borrower to obtain a loan from the lender which would not have been available to it under normal market conditions, the national courts, within the framework of their obligation to remedy the consequences of the unlawful aid measure, are obliged, or at any rate authorised to cancel the guarantee, even if that does not result in the cancellation of the loan granted under the guarantee?