European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

Any interested party may inform the Commission of any allegedly unlawful aid and any alleged misuse of aid (Regulation No 2015/1589, Article 24(2)). In consideration, the interested party is informed by the Commission of its decision whether or not to examine the aid in question. The Regulation classifies as interested parties “any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of underta …

Rights of interested parties

Any interested party may inform the Commission of any allegedly unlawful aid and any alleged misuse of aid (Regulation No 2015/1589, Article 24(2)). In consideration, the interested party is informed by the Commission of its decision whether or not to examine the aid in question. The Regulation classifies as interested parties “any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations” (Regulation No 2015/1589, Article 1). The competing undertaking of the beneficiary of a State aid is classified as an interested party only where its competitive position is affected by the grant of the aid .

Although the interested parties are not entitled, at the preliminary examination phase, to submit comments , they may put forward certain rights towards the Commission, without however the latter being required to conduct an exchange of views and arguments with the complainant or to examine certain objections of its own motion . Therefore, the Commission's obligation to state reasons for its decisions may in certain circumstances require an exchange of views and arguments with the complainant in order to deal diligently and impartially with the complaint . Where a party seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision essentially on the grounds that it was taken without opening a formal investigation procedure, in breach of its procedural rights, it may invoke, in support of its appeal, any means of establishing that the assessment of the information and elements available to the Commission at the preliminary stage that should have given rise to serious difficulties in determining the existence of State aid or doubts as to its compatibility, without this having the effect of altering the purpose of the action or the conditions of admissibility . However, since the State aid review procedure is a procedure open to the Member State responsible, in terms of its obligations under EU law, for granting the aid, there is no provision reserving a particular role, among the interested parties, to the beneficiaries of such aid and the latter, who have the guarantee of being heard during the procedure, cannot claim that, when they make use of this guarantee, the Commission must, at the end of the procedure, respond to all their observations in its decision .

Lastly, prior initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission is also required to broach with the State dispensing the aid the subject of the classification as new aid that such State is likely to challenge . However, an infringement of the right to be heard at this stage of the procedure has no impact on the validity of the final decision where it is not established that, had it not been for such an irregularity, the outcome of the procedure would have been different .

Case T-188/95 Waterleiding Maatschappij “Noord-West Brabant” v Commission [1998] ECR II-3713, LawLex200500005250JBJ.

Case C-198/91 Cook v Commission [1993] ECR I-2487, LawLex200500004909JBJ; Case T-266/94 Skibsvaerftsforeningen and others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1399, LawLex200500005244JBJ; Case T-371/94 British Airways and others and British Midland Airways v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, LawLex200500005198JBJ.

Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France [1998] ECR I-1719, LawLex200500005087JBJ, CMLR, 1999, 1335, obs. SLOT.

Case T-95/94 Sytraval and Brink's France v Commission [1995] ECR II-2651, LawLex200500005213JBJ.

Case T-161/18 Braesch and others, Judgment of 24 February 2021, LawLex202100004858JBJ.

Case T-702/22, Judgment of 18 December 2024, LawLex202100004858JBJ.

Case C-400/99 Italy v Commission [2001] ECR I-7303, LawLex200600000746JBJ.

Case T-211-05 Italy v Commission, LawLex200900003053JBJ.

European Competition Law

436. Rights of interested parties

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

436. Rights of interested parties

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise