#2241392
Breithiúnas an 13 Meán Fómhair 2017, ENEA, C-329/15, EU:C:2017:671, mír 30.
Judgement of 13 September 2017, ENEA, C-329/15, EU:C:2017:671, paragraph 30.
Filter results
Collections
6 results in 2 documents
#2245462
Cás C-329/15, ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki, ECLI:EU:C:2017:671, mír 31.
Case C-329/15, ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki, ECLI:EU:C:2017:671, paragraph 31.
#2245465
Féach freisin Tuairim an Abhcóide Ghinearálta Saumandsgaard Øe, Cás C-329/15, ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji, ECLI:EU:C:2017:233, pointe 99 agus pointe 100.
See also Opinion of Advocate General Saumandsgaard Øe, Case C-329/15, ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji, ECLI:EU:C:2017:233, points 99 and 100.
#2241107
Sa bhreithiúnas ENEA SA, dhearbhaigh an Chúirt nár deonaíodh beart trí acmhainní Stáit sa chás nach bhféadfaí na costais bhreise de thoradh an bhirt sin a chur ar aghaidh chuig úsáideoirí deiridh ina n-iomláine.
In the ENEA SA judgment, the Court held that a measure was not granted through State resources where the extra costs resulting from that measure could not be fully passed on to end-users.
#2244888
I dtaca leis sin, mínigh an Danmhairg agus an tSualainn go leanann sé ó bhreithiúnas na Cúirte in ENEA go “féadfar acmhainní gnóthas poiblí a mheas mar acmhainní Stáit áit a bhfuil an Stát in ann, trína thionchar ceannasach a fheidhmiú ar na gnóthais sin, úsáid a n-acmhainní a stiúradh chun buntáistí a mhaoiniú chun tairbhe gnóthas eile” (is iad údaráis na Danmhairge agus na Sualainne an fo-líniú).
In this regard, Denmark and Sweden explain that it follows from the Court’s judgment in ENEA that ‘the resources of public undertakings may be regarded as State resources where the State is capable, by exercising its dominant influence over such undertakings, of directing the use of their resources in order to finance advantages to the benefit of other undertakings’ (emphasis added by the Danish and Swedish authorities).
#2244890
Ina theannta sin, mhínigh údaráis na Danmhairge agus na Sualainne, agus iad ag tagairt do ENEA arís, nach raibh iompar PostNord AB “arna dhíotáil ag treoracha ó údaráis phoiblí” agus dá bhrí sin nach raibh sé inchurtha i leith na Danmhairge ná na Sualainne.
In addition, the Danish and Swedish authorities explain, by again referring to ENEA, that the conduct of PostNord AB was not ‘dictated by instructions from public authorities’ and thus was not imputable to Denmark or Sweden.