This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CA0706
Case C-706/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’ v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Measures intended to compensate providers of public interest services in the electricity sector — Concept of aid ‘affecting trade between Member States’ and ‘distorting or threatening to distort competition’ — Concept of‘selective advantage’ — Service of general economic interest — Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations)
Case C-706/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’ v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Measures intended to compensate providers of public interest services in the electricity sector — Concept of aid ‘affecting trade between Member States’ and ‘distorting or threatening to distort competition’ — Concept of‘selective advantage’ — Service of general economic interest — Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations)
Case C-706/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’ v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Measures intended to compensate providers of public interest services in the electricity sector — Concept of aid ‘affecting trade between Member States’ and ‘distorting or threatening to distort competition’ — Concept of‘selective advantage’ — Service of general economic interest — Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations)
OJ C 255, 29.7.2019, p. 7–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.7.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 255/7 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’ v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)
(Case C-706/17) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Measures intended to compensate providers of public interest services in the electricity sector - Concept of aid ‘affecting trade between Member States’ and ‘distorting or threatening to distort competition’ - Concept of‘selective advantage’ - Service of general economic interest - Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations)
(2019/C 255/09)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’
Respondent: Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)
Joined parties: Lietuvos Respublikos energetikos ministerija, UAB ‘Baltpool’
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the funds earmarked for financing a public interest service scheme, such as the public interest services in the electricity sector, constitute State resources within the meaning of that provision. |
|
2. |
Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when distribution and transport system operators receive monies intended to finance public interest services in the electricity sector in order to offset the losses sustained by reason of the obligation to purchase electricity at a fixed rate from certain electricity producers and to balance it out, that compensation constitutes an advantage, within the meaning of that provision, granted to the electricity producers. |
|
3. |
Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, funds, such as the monies intended for certain providers of public interest services in the electricity sector, must be regarded as conferring a selective advantage, within the meaning of that provision, on those providers and must be regarded as liable to affect trade between Member States. |
|
4. |
Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a State measure, such as the regime of public interest services in the electricity sector, must not be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, within the meaning of the judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg (C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415), unless the referring court establishes that any one of the public interest services in the electricity sector does in fact meet the four conditions set out in paragraphs 88 to 93 of that judgment. |
|
5. |
Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a State measure, such as the regime relating to the provision of public interest services in the electricity sector, must be regarded as distorting or liable to distort competition. |