Was the Commission required to correct or extend the formal investigation procedure if it wanted to decide on the economic continuity between the former HelB and the new HelB?

Yes, the Commission was required to publish a supplementary decision to allow interested parties to submit comments on the new relevant issue of economic continuity.

Did the General Court err in holding that the Commission's failure to involve the appellant in the formal investigation procedure was not an infringement of an essential procedural requirement?

Yes, the General Court erred; the Commission's failure to involve the appellant constituted an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

Supplementary decision required to include new relevant issues in state aid investigations.

European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) · 29 juli 2024 · Judgment · Appeal

(Appeal – State aid – SA.33846 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) – Relevant issue post-dating the publication of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure – Identification of the beneficiary of the aid – Obligation to publish an amending opening decision – Right of the beneficiary of the aid to submit comments – Essential procedural requirement – Incompatibility with the internal market – Recovery of the aid ordered by the European Commission – Amount to be recovered – Competence of the Member State concerned)

Rechtsvraag

Whether the European Commission committed a substantial procedural error by failing to involve Koiviston Auto Helsinki Oy in the formal investigation procedure following its acquisition of Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy, and whether this failure constituted an infringement of an essential procedural requirement that invalidates the Commission's decision.

Regel

Art. 108(2), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Obligation to give interested parties the opportunity to submit their comments during the formal investigation procedure)
Art. 6(1), Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (Requirement for the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure to summarize relevant issues of fact and law)
Art. 1(h), Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (Definition of 'interested party' as any person or undertaking whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid)
Art. 41, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Right to good administration, including the right to be heard)
Case Law Precedents: Commission v Freistaat Sachsen (C-334/07 P), Commission v Freistaat Bayern and Others (C-167/19 P), and Commission v Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo (C-56/18 P).

Conclusie

The Court concluded that the European Commission committed a substantial procedural error by failing to publish a supplementary opening decision and involve Koiviston Auto Helsinki Oy in the formal investigation procedure. This failure constituted an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, leading to the annulment of the Commission's decision.

Tijdlijn

2002 HKL-Bussiliikenne Oy was granted a EUR 14.5 million equipment loan to fund the procurement of bus transport equipment.
01-01-2005 Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (the former HelB) assumed the EUR 14.5 million equipment loan from HKL-Bussiliikenne.
31-01-2011 The City of Helsinki granted the former HelB a capital loan of EUR 5.8 million.
23-05-2012 The City of Helsinki granted the former HelB another capital loan of EUR 8 million.
31-10-2011 Nobina Sverige AB and Nobina Finland Oy lodged a complaint with the European Commission alleging unlawful aid granted to the former HelB.
16-01-2015 The European Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding the measures at issue concerning the former HelB.
24-06-2015 The City of Helsinki informed the European Commission of the implementation of the sale process of the former HelB.
14-12-2015 The former HelB was sold to Viikin Linja Oy, which was renamed Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (the new HelB).
28-06-2019 The European Commission adopted Decision (EU) 2020/1814 on State aid SA.33846 – (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Finland for Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy.
09-09-2019 The new HelB lodged an action with the General Court seeking the annulment of the decision at issue.
14-09-2022 The General Court dismissed the action brought by the new HelB for the annulment of the Commission's decision.
11-11-2022 Koiviston Auto Helsinki Oy, formerly Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy, brought an appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.