T-220/1462014TJ0220EU:T:2017:26700011155T

   JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

   6 April 2017 ( [1]*1 )

   'State aid -- Maritime transport -- Public service compensation --
   Capital increase -- Decision declaring aid incompatible with the
   internal market and ordering that it be recovered -- Bankruptcy of the
   applicant -- Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings -- Continued
   interest in bringing proceedings -- Failure to find that there was no
   need to adjudicate -- Concept of aid -- Service of general economic
   interest -- Private investor test -- Manifest error of assessment --
   Error of law -- Plea of illegality -- Obligation to state reasons --
   Rights of the defence -- Decision 2011/21/EU -- Guidelines on State aid
   for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty -- Union framework
   applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation --
   Altmark judgment'

   In Case T-220/14,

   Saremar -- Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA, established in Cagliari
   (Italy), represented by G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego,
   lawyers,

   applicant,

   v

   European Commission, represented by G. Conte, D. Grespan, and
   A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents,

   defendant,

   supported by

   Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA, established in Naples (Italy),
   represented initially by F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti and
   A. Neri, and subsequently by M. Merola, B. Carnevale and M. Toniolo,
   lawyers,

   intervener,

   APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision
   C(2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 concerning aid measures SA.32014
   (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) granted by the
   Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy) to Saremar in the form of public
   service compensation and a capital increase, in so far as that decision
   found those measures to be State aid incompatible with the internal
   market and ordered that it be recovered,

   THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

   composed of D. Gratsias (Rapporteur), President, M. Kancheva and
   N. Pól/torak, Judges,

   Registrar: J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator,

   having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the
   hearing on 20 July 2016,

   gives the following

   Judgment ( [2]1 )

   [omissis]

   Law

   1. Saremar's capacity to be a party to legal proceedings

   43

   As a preliminary point, it is apparent from the explanations and
   documents provided by the parties to the Court on 11 and 29 July 2016
   that, given the impossibility of repaying that part of the aid in
   dispute that had already been paid out, Saremar requested to be
   admitted to a procedure for an arrangement with creditors with a view
   to its liquidation, which request was homologated by the Tribunale di
   Cagliari (Cagliari Court, Italy) on 22 July 2015. Saremar ceased all
   activity on 31 March 2016 and is at an advanced stage of the
   liquidation phase, inasmuch as all privileged creditors have had their
   claims satisfied and the plan is to proceed in the coming months with
   an initial substantial distribution amongst the unsecured creditors.

   44

   Under the applicable national law and procedural rules, a company
   placed under liquidation may lose its capacity to be a party to legal
   proceedings, at least in its own name. Moreover, the applicant itself
   states that that may be the case under Italian law. At the hearing and
   in its correspondence of 29 July 2016, the Commission submitted only
   that the applicant's bankruptcy calls its interest in bringing
   proceedings into question, but not that that liquidation calls into
   question its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings. However,
   since the applicant's loss of capacity to be a party to legal
   proceedings would make the question of its interest in bringing
   proceedings pointless, it must be ascertained whether it has retained
   that capacity in the course of the present proceedings.

   45

   In that regard, although, as the Court of Justice has held, the concept
   of `legal person' in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU does not
   necessarily coincide with the corresponding concepts specific to the
   different legal orders of the Member States, it nevertheless follows
   from the case-law that the concept implies, in principle, the existence
   of a legal personality constituted under the law of a Member State or
   third country and capacity to be a party to legal proceedings
   recognised under that law (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 March
   1959, Nold v High Authority, [3]18/57, [4]EU:C:1959:6; 28 October 1982,
   Groupement des Agences de voyages v Commission, [5]135/81,
   [6]EU:C:1982:371, paragraph [7]10; 18 January 2007, PKK and KNK v
   Council, [8]C-229/05 P, [9]EU:C:2007:32, paragraph [10]114; and order
   of 24 November 2009, Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission,
   [11]C-281/08 P, not published, [12]EU:C:2009:728, paragraph [13]22).
   Thus, it is only in exceptional circumstances, including when
   imperatives of ensuring effective judicial protection so require, that
   the admissibility of an action brought by an entity that does not have
   capacity to be a party to legal proceedings may be allowed (see, to
   that effect, judgment of 18 January 2007, PKK and KNK v Council,
   [14]C-229/05 P, [15]EU:C:2007:32, paragraphs [16]109 to [17]114). That
   capacity to be a party to legal proceedings must be retained throughout
   the proceedings (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2007,
   Salvat père & fils and Others v Commission, [18]T-136/05,
   [19]EU:T:2007:295, paragraphs [20]25 to [21]27, and 21 March 2012,
   Marine Harvest Norway and Alsaker Fjordbruk v Council, [22]T-113/06,
   not published, [23]EU:T:2012:135, paragraphs [24]27 to [25]29). The
   existence of legal personality and the capacity to be a party to legal
   proceedings must be examined in the light of relevant national law
   (judgment of 27 November 1984, Bensider and Others v Commission,
   [26]50/84, [27]EU:C:1984:365, paragraph [28]7, and order of 3 April
   2008, Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, [29]T-236/06,
   [30]EU:T:2008:91, paragraph [31]22).

   46

   In the present case, it is apparent from Saremar's correspondence of
   29 July 2016 that, in accordance with the case-law of the Corte suprema
   di cassazione (Court of Cassation, Italy), a company that is the
   subject of an arrangement with creditors retains the right to bring
   legal proceedings in its own name and to be a party to legal
   proceedings in order to protect its assets. Moreover, the applicant
   attached to that correspondence a letter from its judicial liquidators
   dated 26 July 2016 confirming that the terms of reference in the
   present proceedings remain valid. Consequently, the conclusion is that,
   despite being placed under liquidation, Saremar has not lost its
   capacity to be a party to legal proceedings in the course of the
   present proceedings.

   2. The Commission's plea that there is no need to adjudicate

   47

   The Commission submits that, due to Saremar's ongoing liquidation, it
   has lost its interest in bringing proceedings in the course of the
   present proceedings. It observes that Saremar's bankruptcy proceedings
   are at an advanced stage and could be completed before judgment is
   given in the present proceedings. Moreover, as the applicant itself
   recognises, it can longer engage in economic activity, even if the
   contested decision were to be annulled, thereby exempting it from the
   obligation to restore the aid. Lastly, the interest of Saremar's
   creditors in seeing the amount of the disputed aid being excluded from
   its liabilities is distinct from the interest in pursuing its economic
   activity. The Commission states by way of conclusion that such a lack
   of interest in bringing proceedings should lead the Court to rule that
   there is no need to adjudicate in the present case.

   48

   In response to those arguments, Saremar submits that the annulment of
   the contested decision will produce legal effects for it, in that it
   will reduce its liabilities in the arrangement with creditors by over
   EUR 11 million, thereby enabling full satisfaction of all creditors'
   claims.

   49

   In accordance with established case-law, an interest in bringing
   proceedings is an essential and fundamental prerequisite for any legal
   proceedings (see judgment of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v
   Commission, [32]C-33/14 P, [33]EU:C:2015:609, paragraph [34]58 and the
   case-law cited).

   50

   In that regard, it follows from Article 263 TFEU that there is a clear
   distinction between the right to bring an action for annulment as
   recognised for EU institutions and the Member States, referred to in
   the second paragraph of that article, and that of natural and legal
   persons, referred to in the fourth paragraph thereof. Thus, according
   to settled case-law, in order to exercise their right to bring
   proceedings, the EU institutions and the Member States need not
   demonstrate that they have locus standi or an interest in bringing
   proceedings (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 March 2011, Freistaat
   Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission, [35]T-443/08 and
   T-455/08, [36]EU:T:2011:117, paragraph [37]64, and order of 19 February
   2013, Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission, [38]T-15/12 and
   T-16/12, not published, [39]EU:T:2013:74, paragraphs [40]42 and [41]44
   and the case-law cited).

   51

   By contrast, the admissibility of an action brought by natural and
   legal persons as referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263
   TFEU is subject, firstly, to the condition that they have locus standi,
   that is to say, in accordance with the wording of that provision, that
   their action is directed at an act which is addressed to them or an act
   which is of direct and individual concern to them, or a regulatory act
   not entailing implementing measures if that act is of direct concern to
   them. Secondly, that interest in bringing proceedings must exist at the
   stage of lodging the action, which is a distinct condition of
   admissibility from locus standi. Like the purpose of the action, the
   interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the final
   decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate (see
   judgment of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission,
   [42]C-33/14 P, [43]EU:C:2015:609, paragraphs [44]57 and [45]59
   to [46]62 and the case-law cited).

   52

   The lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings constitutes an
   absolute bar to proceedings which it is for the Court to examine of its
   own motion either at the time the action is lodged in order to
   determine whether the action is admissible in the first place, or
   during the course of the proceedings in order to ascertain whether
   there is still a need to adjudicate on the action (see, to that effect,
   order of 24 March 2011, Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission,
   [47]T-36/10, [48]EU:T:2011:124, paragraph [49]46 and the case-law
   cited).

   53

   Such an interest requires that the annulment of that act must be
   capable, in itself, of having legal consequences and that the action
   may therefore, through its outcome, procure an advantage to the party
   which brought it (judgments of 7 June 2007, Wunenburger v Commission,
   [50]C-362/05 P, [51]EU:C:2007:322, paragraph [52]42, and 17 September
   2015, Mory and Others v Commission, [53]C-33/14 P, [54]EU:C:2015:609,
   paragraph [55]55). An applicant's interest in bringing proceedings must
   be vested and current and may not concern a future and hypothetical
   situation (see judgment of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v
   Commission, [56]C-33/14 P, [57]EU:C:2015:609, paragraph [58]56 and the
   case-law cited).

   54

   As a preliminary point, the present action meets the admissibility
   conditions referred to in paragraphs 51 to 53 above both in terms of
   the applicant's locus standi and its having an interest in bringing
   proceedings at the time the action is lodged, a point not disputed by
   the Commission.

   55

   Regarding, in particular, the interest in bringing proceedings, it
   should be noted that, on the date the action was lodged, the contested
   decision adversely affected the applicant, in that the Commission
   declared incompatible and unlawful the aid the applicant had received
   and ordered that it be recovered. By that fact alone, the contested
   decision brought about a change in the legal position of the company
   which, as from the time of adoption of that decision, was no longer
   entitled to receive that aid and had to expect, in principle, to have
   to repay that aid (see judgment of 21 December 2011, ACEA v Commission,
   [59]C-319/09 P, not published, [60]EU:C:2011:857, paragraphs [61]68
   and [62]69 and the case-law cited).

   56

   It is clear that, notwithstanding Saremar's being placed under
   liquidation, it has not lost its interest in bringing proceedings as
   defined in paragraph 55 above.

   57

   First of all, the contested decision has not been repealed or
   withdrawn, so that the present action retains its purpose (see, to that
   effect, judgment of 7 June 2007, Wunenburger v Commission,
   [63]C-362/05 P, [64]EU:C:2007:322, paragraph [65]48).

   58

   Next, the legal effects of the contested decision have not become
   obsolete solely due to Saremar's bankruptcy.

   59

   First of all, because of the contested decision, the RAS is still not
   allowed to disburse to Saremar that part of the disputed capital
   increase which it had not paid because of being notified of that
   operation by the Commission, as indicated in the minutes of the
   shareholders' meeting of Saremar dated 11 July 2012, annexed to the
   application. There is nothing in the case file ruling out the
   possibility that, should the contested decision be annulled, that part
   of the disputed capital increase, which Saremar would then be entitled
   to receive, might be integrated into its assets.

   60

   Secondly, regarding the part of the disputed aid already paid by the
   RAS to Saremar, according to settled case-law, the mere fact that the
   undertaking has been placed in bankruptcy proceedings, inter alia when
   those proceedings lead to the undertaking's being liquidated, does not
   affect the principle that aid is to be recovered. In such a scenario,
   the re-establishment of the previous situation and the elimination of
   the distortion of competition resulting from the unlawfully paid aid
   may, in principle, be achieved by entry of the liability relating to
   the repayment of the aid in question in the schedule of liabilities
   (see judgment of 1 July 2009, KG Holding and Others v Commission,
   [66]T-81/07 to T-83/07, [67]EU:T:2009:237, paragraphs [68]192
   and [69]193 and the case-law cited). Consequently, because of the
   contested decision, the disputed aid must, at the very least, remain in
   Saremar's liabilities, so that, even if it cannot be repaid to the RAS,
   it is no longer included in the applicant's assets.

   61

   Consequently, it should be noted that Saremar's bankruptcy does not
   affect the finding in paragraph 55 above, to the effect that annulment
   of the contested decision would be liable to procure an advantage for
   the applicant, as it would necessarily bring about a change to its
   legal position in regards to the disputed aid. Annulment would also
   have the effect of improving significantly its economic situation, as
   the disputed aid could once again be integrated into its assets.
   Furthermore, that analysis is confirmed by the judgment of 13 September
   2010, Greece and Others v Commission ([70]T-415/05, T-416/05 and
   T-423/05, [71]EU:T:2010:386), in which the Court held that companies in
   liquidation that had repaid the aid at issue therein retained an
   interest in bringing proceedings since, in the event of annulment, the
   Hellenic Republic would be liable to return to them the amounts repaid,
   which would then be entered in the assets of their respective
   liquidation balance sheets (judgment of 13 September 2010, Greece and
   Others v Commission, [72]T-415/05, T-416/05 and T-423/05,
   [73]EU:T:2010:386, paragraph [74]62).

   62

   Nor has the Court been informed to date that the process of liquidating
   Saremar has been completed.

   63

   It follows from all the foregoing that Saremar retains an interest in
   bringing the present proceedings and, therefore, that there is a need
   to adjudicate in the present case.

   [omissis]



   On those grounds,

   THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

   hereby:


   1.

   Dismisses the action;


   2.

   Orders Saremar -- Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA to bear its own
   costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and
   Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA.


   Gratsias

   Kancheva

   Pól/torak

   Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 April 2017.

   [Signatures]
     __________________________________________________________________

   ( [75]*1 ) Language of the case: Italian.

   ( [76]1 ) Only the paragraphs of this judgment which the Court
   considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.

References

   1. file:///tmp/lynxXXXXbQax99/L89017-1479TMP.html#t-ECR_62014TJ0220_EXT_EN_01-E0001
   2. file:///tmp/lynxXXXXbQax99/L89017-1479TMP.html#t-ECR_62014TJ0220_EXT_EN_01-E0002
   3. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1959%3A6&locale=en
   4. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1959%3A6&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
   5. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1982%3A371&locale=en
   6. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1982%3A371&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
   7. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1982%3A371&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point10
   8. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&locale=en
   9. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  10. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point114
  11. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2009%3A728&locale=en
  12. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2009%3A728&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  13. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2009%3A728&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point22
  14. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&locale=en
  15. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  16. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point109
  17. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A32&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point114
  18. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2007%3A295&locale=en
  19. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2007%3A295&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  20. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2007%3A295&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point25
  21. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2007%3A295&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point27
  22. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2012%3A135&locale=en
  23. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2012%3A135&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  24. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2012%3A135&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point27
  25. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2012%3A135&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point29
  26. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1984%3A365&locale=en
  27. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1984%3A365&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  28. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1984%3A365&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point7
  29. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2008%3A91&locale=en
  30. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2008%3A91&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  31. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2008%3A91&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point22
  32. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&locale=en
  33. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  34. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point58
  35. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2011%3A117&locale=en
  36. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2011%3A117&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  37. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2011%3A117&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point64
  38. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2013%3A74&locale=en
  39. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2013%3A74&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  40. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2013%3A74&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point42
  41. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2013%3A74&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point44
  42. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&locale=en
  43. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  44. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point57
  45. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point59
  46. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point62
  47. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2011%3A124&locale=en
  48. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2011%3A124&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  49. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2011%3A124&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point46
  50. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A322&locale=en
  51. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A322&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  52. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A322&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point42
  53. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&locale=en
  54. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  55. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point55
  56. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&locale=en
  57. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  58. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A609&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point56
  59. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2011%3A857&locale=en
  60. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2011%3A857&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  61. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2011%3A857&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point68
  62. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2011%3A857&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point69
  63. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A322&locale=en
  64. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A322&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  65. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2007%3A322&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point48
  66. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2009%3A237&locale=en
  67. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2009%3A237&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  68. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2009%3A237&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point192
  69. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2009%3A237&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point193
  70. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2010%3A386&locale=en
  71. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2010%3A386&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  72. file:///../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2010%3A386&locale=en
  73. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2010%3A386&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab
  74. file:///../../legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2010%3A386&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point62
  75. file:///tmp/lynxXXXXbQax99/L89017-1479TMP.html#c-ECR_62014TJ0220_EXT_EN_01-E0001
  76. file:///tmp/lynxXXXXbQax99/L89017-1479TMP.html#c-ECR_62014TJ0220_EXT_EN_01-E0002