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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The annotated case concerns an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the Annex to the guidelines, comprising a catalogue of industries eligible for receiving State aid due to the risk of carbon leakage. The appellants’ operations were not included in this list. In its judgment, the Court ruled on the two main pleas: inadequate statement of reasons and error in not considering the applicants as interested parties in a situation where, although no individual Commission’s decision has been issued based on the guidelines yet, the fact of not being included in the Annex prevents them from receiving State aid. The commentary delves into the appellants’ line of reasoning, explaining the attempt to ‘force-fit’ arguments concerning the infringement of law into an issue that falls within the realm of policy. Moreover, the analysis assesses a potential opening left by the Court: challenging individual decisions that authorise aid for other undertakings, evaluating its viability in the context of the most recent developments in case law.

european state aid law quarterly

Joined Cases C-73/22 P and C-77/22 P Grupa Azoty S.A. and Others v Commission ·  Annotation by Jakub Kociubiński Annotation on Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2023 in Joined Cases C-73/22 P and C-77/22 P Grupa Azoty S.A. and Others v Commission