Judgment of the General Court Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition of 14 September 2022, Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission, T-603/19

• Date: 14 September 2022
• Year: 2022

31

8. COMPETITION: STATE AID

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 September

2022, Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission, T-603/19

Link to the judgment as published in extract form

State aid – Coach and bus transport – Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki –

Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery – Economic

continuity – Procedural rights of interested parties – Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 – Obligation

to state reasons

The company Helsingin Bussiliikenne (‘the former HelB’), wholly owned by the City of Helsinki

(Finland), operated bus routes in the Helsinki area and offered charter transport and bus leasing

services. In December 2015, the City of Helsinki sold the former HelB to the company Viikin Linja Oy.

In accordance with the terms of the deed of sale, Viikin Linja Oy was renamed Helsingin Bussiliikenne

Oy (‘the applicant’).

Having received a complaint, the Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure concerning

several equipment and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki between 2002 and 2012 in favour

of the former HelB and its predecessor HKL-Bussiliikenne (‘the measures at issue’). The decision

initiating the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union,

71

and interested

parties were invited to submit their comments within one month of that publication. The Commission,

which was informed in June 2015 of the imminent sale of the former HelB to the applicant, received

no comments from the applicant.

By decision of 28 June 2019 (‘the contested decision’),

72

the Commission found that the measures at

issue constituted State aid incompatible with the internal market which the Republic of Finland was

obliged to recover from the beneficiary. Finding that there was economic continuity between the

former HelB and the applicant, the Commission extended the obligation to repay the unlawful aid to

the applicant.

The applicant brought an action for annulment against that decision, which is dismissed by the Sixth

Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Ge neral Court. In its judgment, the Court addresses for the

first time the procedural obligations incumbent on the Commission, in the context of the formal

investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, to an entity which continues the economic

activity of the initial beneficiary of State aid and which, because of the application of the criterion of

economic continuity, is subject to the obligation to repay the aid.

Findings of the Court

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant complained, inter alia, that the Commission had

not given it the opportunity to be heard before the contested decision was adopted. According to the

applicant, the Commission was required, following the transfer of the former HelB, to correct or

supplement the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure or, at least, allow it to submit

its comments.

71

Decision C(2015) 80 final of 16 January 2015 on measure SA.33846 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) – Finland – Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy

(OJ 2015 C 116, p. 22).

72

Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1814 of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 – (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Finland

for Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (OJ 2020 L 404, p. 10).