This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0159
Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
OJ C 191, 30.5.2016, p. 15–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
30.5.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 191/15 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
(Case C-159/16)
(2016/C 191/19)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Augstākā tiesa
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’
Defendant: Konkurences padome
Questions referred
1. |
Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)? |
2. |
Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses? |
3. |
May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU? |