See points 20 and 21 of this Opinion.
See points 20 and 21 of this Opinion.
In accordance with paragraphs 89 to 93 of the judgment in
The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union include in particular:
the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
…
The provisions of the Treaties shall be without prejudice to the competence of Member States to provide for the funding of public service broadcasting and insofar as such funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each Member State, and insofar as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest, while the realisation of the remit of that public service shall be taken into account.
Area I, which includes 96% of the Spanish population and where, as that area was considered to be commercially profitable, the cost of switching to digital was to be borne by the public and private broadcasters; Area II, which includes remote and less urbanised regions representing 2.5% of the Spanish population, where broadcasters, in the absence of commercial interest, had not invested in digitisation, which led the Spanish authorities to put public funding in place; Area III, encompassing 1.5% of the Spanish population, where DTT broadcasting was ruled out by the topography, the Spanish authorities’ choice was the satellite platform.
In February 2008, the Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade, Spain) (
The present description of the decision at issue is not exhaustive. It is intended only to summarise the sections of the decision which are relevant to the common plea raised by the present appeals.
See recital 94 of the decision at issue.
See recitals 100 to 108 of the decision at issue.
See recitals 109 to 122 of the decision at issue.
See recital 113 of the decision at issue.
See recital 114 of the decision at issue.
See recitals 119 to 126 of the decision at issue and point 20 of this Opinion.
See recital 172 of the decision at issue and point 21 of this Opinion.
Judgments of
See footnote 4 of this Opinion.
See, in particular, order of
Judgments of
Judgment of
Judgments of
Judgments of
Judgments of
The appellants cite, as regards the Court’s case-law, judgments of
Judgments of
Judgment of
Judgment of
Judgments of
Judgment of
Judgments of
Judgments of
Judgments of
Judgments of
Judgment of
Judgments of
Judgments of
Paragraph 95 of the judgment in question.
See footnote 4 of this Opinion.
Judgments of
Which reproduces recital 121 of the decision at issue and point 20 of this Opinion.
See point 20 of this Opinion.
Judgment of
Judgment of
See recitals 23 to 36 of the decision at issue.
Judgment of
Judgment of
See recitals 23 to 36 of the decision at issue.
See footnote 29 of the decision at issue.
See point 20 of this Opinion.
Judgments of
This terminology is used in the judgment in
This terminology is used in Article 106(2) TFEU It should be pointed out that the concept of SGEI is not defined in Articles 14 and 106(2) TFEU.
See, by analogy, judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
For the four conditions, see footnote 4 of this Opinion.
See, by analogy, judgment of
Namely, if the four conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are satisfied.
See also Article 107(3) TFEU. The compensation for SGEIs which constitutes State aid and which is provided in application of Article 106(2) TFEU must be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU unless it is covered by a specific exemption. See, in particular, Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of
Judgments of
Judgment of
Judgment of
Emphasis added.
Or indeed several undertakings.
According to the Court,
See judgment of
Judgments of
Judgments of
The importance of SGEIs within the Union and the competence of Member States in providing, implementing and funding those services is made clear in Article 14 TFEU. However, the tension between the powers of the Union and the Member States in the field of SGEIs, and the need to comply with the provisions of the FEU Treaty while ensuring the supply of those services by the Member States, is clear from the very wording of Article 14 TFEU. In paragraph 167 of the judgment of
Judgment of
Judgments of
Judgments of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See also judgments of
Emphasis added. See also judgment of
Or several undertakings.
Article 106(2) TFEU refers to undertakings entrusted with the operation of SGEIs.
In the judgment of
Judgments of
Judgments of
Judgment of
That is so
In the judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on access to SGEIs.
Judgment of
On the need for transparency with regard to the nature and scope of the obligations imposed, see judgment of
To my mind, although the four conditions laid down in the judgment in
See points 41 and 42 of this Opinion.
See point 42 of this Opinion.
In accordance with Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, appeals are to be limited to points of law. The General Court has exclusive jurisdiction to find and assess the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where the facts or evidence are distorted, constitute points of law subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal. See order of
See footnote 4 of this Opinion.
See points 36 and 37 of this Opinion.
See points 100 to 106 of this Opinion.
Judgments of
See point 50 of this Opinion.
In this instance, the Kingdom of Spain.
After having examined the relevant Spanish legislation.
Judgments of
In particular by application of the principle of technological neutrality in the network operation service.
Judgments of
See points 52 to 56 of this Opinion
See points 53 and 54 of this Opinion.
Judgment of
Judgment of
See judgment of
See judgment of
See point 53 of this Opinion.
See point 64 of this Opinion.
See, to that effect, judgment of
See point 72 of this Opinion.
See point 73 of this Opinion.
Judgments of
See point 71 of this Opinion.
See point 75 of this Opinion.
in the Joined Cases in the Case of in the Case of