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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

On 17 December 2020, the Court of Justice brought an end to the Inpost saga, following the compatibility assessment by the Commission – and the subsequent appeal before the General Court – of an aid scheme for universal service obligations in the postal sector. Together, these decisions and judgments provide the opportunity to reflect on three more general issues of State aid law. First, the acceptable calculation method of ‘an unfair financial burden’ should be highlighted, a key notion in the Postal Services Directive. Second, the rules of interaction between non-State aid provisions of EU law and the aid analysis will be revisited. Third, and finally, the connection between the transparency requirements of the SGEI Framework and the public service inquiry has to be clarified.

european state aid law quarterly

‘Wait a Minute, Mr Postman’: On Universal Service, the Postal Services Directive and the SGEI Framework · Joined Cases C-431/19 P and C-432/19 P Inpost · Annotation by Joris Gruyters and Lennard Michaux Annotation on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 in Joined Cases C-431/19 P and C-432/19 P Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. and Inpost S.A. v European Commission