English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The present annotiation analyses the General Court's judgment of 22 June 2016 in case T-118/13 Whirlpool Europe BV vs European Commission. The judgment shed light on the difficulties to prove admissibility for competitors of State aid beneficiaries. After describing the background of the case it deals with the arguments of the parties, the General Court's resoning  and draws some conclusion on the practical difficulties for third parties to submit sucessfull pleas to EU Courts.  Keywords: Admissibility; Direct Concern; Substantial Effect; Res Judicata.

european state aid law quarterly

Whirlpool Europe BV v European Commission   ∙  T-118/13 ∙   Annotation by Péter Staviczky Annotation of the Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2016 in case T-118/13 Whirlpool Europe BV v European Commission