Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013CJ0242

Summary of the Judgment

Case C‑242/13

Commerz Nederland NV

v

Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Definition of aid — Guarantees provided by a public undertaking to a bank to facilitate lending to third party creditors — Guarantees deliberately provided by the director of that public undertaking in disregard of that undertaking’s statutes — Presumption of opposition by the public body that owns that undertaking — Whether the guarantees may be imputed to the State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 September 2014

  1. Judicial procedure — Request to have the oral procedure reopened — Request to lodge observations on the points of law raised by the Advocate General’s opinion — Conditions for the reopening

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83)

  2. State aid — Concept — Guarantees provided by a public undertaking — Whether imputable to the public authority controlling that undertaking — Set of indicators to be taken into consideration

    (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

  1.  See the text of the decision.

    (see para. 26)

  2.  Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining whether or not the guarantees provided by a public undertaking are imputable to the public authority controlling that undertaking, the following are relevant, together with the body of evidence arising from the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings and from the context in which they took place: (i) that the sole director of the company providing those guarantees acted improperly, deliberately kept the provision of those guarantees secret and disregarded the undertaking’s statutes and (ii) that that public authority would have opposed the provision of those guarantees, had it been informed of it. However, those circumstances are not, in themselves, capable of excluding such imputability.

    (see para. 39 and operative part)

Top