EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

2.2 Methodology The methodology applicable here falls within legal sciences (legal research, “jurisprudence”) and doctrinal research. If one were to use the division between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research (Creswell, 2018), this paper uses the first of the three.

3. Analysis and Problem Solution

3.1 Judicial review of Commission decisions in state aid cases before Comune di Milano According to the Court in C‑73/11 P Frucona Košice , in the context of the review conducted by the European Union Courts on complex economic assessments made by the Commission in the field of state aid, it is not for those Courts to substitute their own economic assessment for that of the Commission. The application of the MEOP (the “Market Economy Operator Principle”) is an example of such an assessment (Case C-486/15 P European Commission v French Republic and Orange , para. 89). However, as to the standard of review, the European Union Courts must, inter alia , establish not only whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable, and consistent but also whether that evidence contains all the relevant information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (C‑73/11 P Frucona Košice , paras 75 and 76). This standard of review was later reiterated inter alia in Case C-300/16 P European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s. , para. 64, having been taken originally from Tetra Laval and later competition law cases. To the extent an interested party (e.g., a complainant or an aid beneficiary) may rely on self-standing procedural rights akin to rights of defence in an administrative procedure regarding state aid (“the right to be associated with it in an adequate manner taking into account the circumstances of the case at issue”), the Court has made a reference to case law on antitrust (specifically, to C-282/95 P Guérin Automobiles ) when introducing the issue in C-521/06 P Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities , para. 38; see also Case C-362/09 P Athinaïki Techniki AE v European Commission , paras 23 and 24). In the context of appeals, it was not unknown for the Court to cross-cite its case law in antitrust cases while ruling on appeal in a state aid case, and vice versa (Case C-431/07 P Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission of the European

326