(AGENPARL) – gio 12 gennaio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Cases C-702/20 and C-17/21:
The establishment as such of State aid cannot result from a judicial decision
Kind regards,
Anna Rizzardi
Trainee
Press and Information Unit
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 2
/23

Luxembourg, 12 January 2023

Judgment of the Court in

Joined

Case
s

C
–
702/20 | DOBELES HES

and C
–
17/21
| GM

The establishment as such of State aid cannot
result from a judicial
decision

O
n 5 May 2004, Latvia adopted a L
aw (in forc
e from 8 June 2004 to 31 December 2014) seeking to amend the
procedure applicable to the sale by electricity producers of surplus production at an increased
tariff
.

That law
provided that producers of electricity from renewable energy
sources who

had alrea
dy commenced their activity at
that date were to continue to benefit from the previous conditions, which were essentially more favourable so far as
concerns the prices applied
to

sale at
the

increased tariff. DOBELES HES SIA and GM SIA are two Latvian
unde
rtakings
which operate hydroelectric power plants producing electricity from renewable energy sources.
Following the entry into force of that Law, the Latvian regulatory authority

that L
aw

as having the effect of blocking, for those producers, the average electricity sale
price at its value in force on 7 June 2005
. That authority therefore ceased to update that price.

That led the applicant undertakings to claim from the regulatory author
ity payment of â??damagesâ??

as compensation
for the losses sustained as a result of the blocking of the tariff. The regulatory authority refused to grant those
claims but the Latvian administrative courts granted
in part
the action brought by those undertakin
gs.

107(1) and Article 108(3) TFEU, the Regulation on
de minimis

aid

1

(State aids of a low amount which need not be
notified to the Commi

2

First, the Court held that there are two alternative criteria enabling the identification of â??State resourcesâ??,
whose
mobilisation is required for there to be
â??State aidâ?? within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU: these are
either funds financed by a levy

or other compulsory surcharges under national legislation and managed and
apportioned in accordance with that legislation, or sums which constantly remain unde
r public control.

increa
sed
tariff

must be characterised as State aid.

C
lassification as â??State aidâ?? is not subject to the condition
.

The Court also points out that State aid, which constitutes measures of the public aut
hority favouring certain
undertakings or certain products, is fundamentally different in its legal nature from the damages which the national

1

Commission Regulation (EU) No

1407/2013 of 18

December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of

the
European Union to
de minimis
aid

(OJ 2013 L

352, p.

1)
.

2

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty

on the Functioning of the
European Union

(OJ 2015 L

248, p.

9).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

authorities may be ordered to pay to individuals in compensation for the harm they have caused to those
individual
s. Thus, damages do not constitute State aid within the meaning of EU law. On the other hand, it is
irrelevant, for the purpose of determining whether sums correspond to â??State aidâ??, whether actions seeking payment
of those sums are classified as â??claims f
or compensationâ?? or as â??claims for damagesâ?? under national law
.

Moreover, where national legislation has established â??State aidâ??, the payment of a sum claimed before the courts in
accordance with that legislation also constitutes such aid.

In response to a
rguments submitted by the Commission,
the Court holds that the establishment as such of
State aid cannot result from a judicial decision.
That establishment

entails a decision as to the appropriate
course of action which falls outside the scope of a courtâ??
s powers and obligations
.

As regards, next, the applicability of EU law covering
de minimis

aids, the Court observes that
it is in the light of the
total amount of the sums already received and the sums still claimed by the applicants during the reference
period
that, assuming those amounts constitute State aid, the
de minimis

nature of the aid at issue in the main proceedings
must be assessed.

Lastly, where the national court is seised of a request seeking the payment of aid which is unlawful, that is to s
ay,
aid
that was not notified to the Commission even though it does not constitute
de minimis

aid,
it must reject such a
request. However, the national court may grant a request seeking the payment of a sum corresponding to new aid
which has not been notif
ied to the Commission, provided that that aid is first duly notified by the national
authorities concerned to that institution and that the latter gives, or is deemed to have given, its consent in that
regard.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary ruling all
ows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does

not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Courtâ??s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Unofficial doc
ument for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

and the abstract

of the judgment is p
ublished on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355