State aid to banks
Einde inhoudsopgave
State aid to banks (IVOR nr. 109) 2018/5.17:5.17 The case of SNS REAAL
State aid to banks (IVOR nr. 109) 2018/5.17
5.17 The case of SNS REAAL
Documentgegevens:
mr. drs. R.E. van Lambalgen, datum 01-12-2017
- Datum
01-12-2017
- Auteur
mr. drs. R.E. van Lambalgen
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS587014:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Mededingingsrecht / EU-mededingingsrecht
Toon alle voetnoten
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
The General Court noted that an annulment of the expropriation could only be obtained before the competent national court (“Raad van State”) and that the applicants indeed brought an action before the Raad van State. Case T-321/13, para. 27.
It should be noted that the General Court did not go into the substance of the case, since the General Court only decided on the pleas of inadmissibility.
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
Case T-321/13, Adorisio and Others v. Commission
This case concerned the State aid to SNS REAAL in 2013. On 1 February 2013, SNS REAAL was nationalised by the Dutch State. In the context of the nationalisation, the shareholders and subordinated debt holders were expropriated.
Until the nationalisation of SNS REAAL, Stefania Adorisio and the other 363 applicants held subordinated bonds issued by SNS REAAL. In the current case, they requested the Court to annul the decision of the Commission of 22 February 2013 (“the contested decision”). In the contested decision, the Commission concluded that the State aid to SNS REAAL was compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
The Commission argued that the action was inadmissible. The General Court accepted the argument of the Commission that the applicants did not have a legal interest in bringing proceedings. The Commission correctly argued that the applicants were unlikely to derive any benefit from the annulment of the contested decision. The annulment of the contested decision would not result in the Netherlands reversing its expropriation decision.1 By order of 26 March 2014, the action was therefore dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.2