General Court Rules on the Commission’s Power to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations in National Court Proceedings under State Aid Procedural Rules
Today, the General Court (GC) rendered its judgment in case Kargins v Commission (T-350/23), in which the applicant alleged that the Commission had acted unlawfully and caused it damages by submitting amicus curiae observations before the Augstākā tiesa (Latvian Supreme Court).
The applicant challenged the validity of Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, which provides the Commission with powers to submit amicus curiae observations before national courts, is inapplicable alleging that the Regulation lacks a legal basis and infringes Article 267 TFEU, the second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The GC upheld the validity of Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, affirming that the Council had the power under Article 109 TFEU to grant the Commission authority to ensure a harmonized application of State aid rules and cooperation with national courts. Therefore, the GC determined that Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 serves a useful purpose in applying Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and rejected the applicant’s claim that it lacks a legal basis in primary EU law.
Additionally, the GC clarified that the submission of amicus curiae observation under Article 29 of the Procedural Regulation does not prevent national courts from making referrals to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU. Both processes are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
The GC also clarified that the amicus curiae mechanism does not interfere with the Commission’s State aid review under Article 108(2) TFEU. It stressed that the Commission’s non-binding observations in national proceedings do not affect its ability to initiate a formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU if a State measure breaches Article 107 TFEU.
Lastly, the GC found that the procedural safeguards provided for under national law are applicable in the context of the national proceedings, and that they are deemed compliant with Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter.
Regarding the claim for damages, it was based on a sufficiently serious breach of Article 29(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, of the principle of the separation of powers, of the principle of the independence of national courts and of the right to an effective remedy and of the principles of impartiality and neutrality. All claims were rejected, and no damages were awarded.
For more information, see the GC’s judgment.