Choose the experimental features you want to try

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

    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?


    Top