Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018.Cellnex Telecom SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA v European Commission.Appeal — State Aid — Digital television — Aid for the extension of digital terrestrial television to the remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Grant in favour of operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid measures to be partially incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State Aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Margin of discretion of the Member States.Joined Cases C-91/17 P and C-92/17 P.

Judgment // 26/04/2018 // 3 min read
bookmark

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 — Cellnex Telecom and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission

(Joined Cases C‑91/17 P and C‑92/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — State Aid — Digital television — Aid for the extension of digital terrestrial television to the remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Grant in favour of operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid measures to be partially incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State Aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Margin of discretion of the Member States)

  1. State aid—Definition—Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking—First condition set out in the Altmark judgment—Clearly defined public service obligations—No recipient undertaking actually entrusted with carrying out public service obligations—Inclusion in the concept—Weakening of the market—Fact not sufficient for a finding that a service of general economic interest exists—Member States’ discretion—Scope

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

(see paras 41-44, 46)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 67-69)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the evidence duly produced—Inadmissible save when the clear sense of the evidence is distorted—Duty of the General Court to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence—Scope

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 76)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate or contradictory grounds—Scope of the obligation to state reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)

(see para. 95)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Inadmissibility—Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law made by the General Court—Admissibility

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d))

(see para. 107)

  1. State aid—Definition—Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries—State intervention mitigating the burdens normally included in the budget of an undertaking—Included

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

(see para. 111)

  1. State aid—Definition—State intervention mitigating the burdens normally included in the budget of an undertaking—Charges arising from compliance with national legislation—Included

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

(see para. 112)

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the appeals;

  2. Orders Cellnex Telecom SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

Competition , State aids