REGULATORY: EU Competition Law: Greek Public Power Company Wins EU Court Challenge

by King & Spalding

[author: Suzanne Rab]

The EU General Court has decided in favour of the Greek state-owned power company Public Power Corporation (PPC) against a European Commission decision sanctioning the utility’s continued virtual monopoly rights over lignite or “brown coal.” The European Commission found that Greece had infringed EU law by granting PPC quasi-exclusive rights for access to lignite deposits in Greece. According to the General Court’s 20 September 2012 ruling, the European Commission had failed to identify and establish to a sufficient legal standard the resulting actual or potential abuse of a dominant position by PPC in order to support a finding of an infringement of EU competition law.

Legal Framework – Interface between Article 106 and 102 TFEU

Before considering the background to and implications of the judgment, it is useful to set out the relevant legal framework at issue. The case revolves around the juxtaposition of two key provisions of EU law and provided a relatively rare opportunity for the General Court to clarify the relationship between those provisions.

Article 106(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) imposes an obligation on member states not to enact nor to maintain in force measures contrary to the provisions in the Treaty. This includes, in particular, the competition rules in situations that involve public undertakings and undertakings to which member states grant “special or exclusive rights”. Where a state measure confers on a dominant public undertaking unequal advantages, it can constitute a violation of Article 106(1) in combination with the EU competition law prohibition of abuse of dominance contained in Article 102 TFEU (or Article 101 TFEU concerning restrictive agreements, although this was not in issue in the present case).

The prohibition in Article 106(1) TFEU is addressed to member states, whereas the prohibition in Article 102 TFEU (and Article 101 TFEU) is addressed to undertakings (companies). An infringement of Article 106(1) TFEU cannot be established unless the state measure in question results in an actual or potential infringement of Article 102 TFEU.


Almost all lignite deposits in Greece are owned by the Greek state. Lignite has characteristics that place it somewhere between coal and peat. About 50 - 60 per cent of total electricity generated in Greece is from lignite-fired plants and it is the cheapest fuel available.

The Greek state grants exploration and exploitation rights for lignite deposits. PPC, in which Greece holds a 51 per cent interest, holds approximately 91 per cent of all such rights, by volume. PPC produces most of its electricity from lignite and is reported to be the second largest producer of brown coal in the EU. PPC is also the holder of two of the three deposits for which exploitation rights remain to be granted. Greece has about 2000 million tonnes of lignite which is not yet exploited.

On 5 March 2008, the European Commission announced a decision that the state measures adopted by Greece to grant to PPC quasi-exclusive access to lignite infringed Article 106(1) TFEU, in combination with Article 102 TFEU. The European Commission considered that the grant of such rights enabled PPC to enjoy a virtual monopoly in respect of access to lignite. The European Commission in the contested decision found that the state measures created a situation of inequality of opportunity between economic operators as regards access to the primary fuel for the purpose of generating electricity in Greece. According to the European Commission, this resulted in a potential abuse of PPC’s dominant position in the market for the supply of electricity to large industrial customers.

General Court Ruling

The General Court in annulling the European Commission’s decision made the following points of significance when considering the application of Article 106(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU.

First, an abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking enjoying a special or exclusive right may either result from the possibility of exercising that right in an abusive manner or be a direct result of the grant of that right.

Second, the mere fact that an undertaking is in an advantageous situation compared with its competitors, as a result of a state measure, is not in itself sufficient to constitute an abuse of a dominant position.

Third, the General Court considered that the case law did not support that it was sufficient to establish that a state measure distorted competition by creating inequality of opportunity between economic operators without it also being necessary to identify and establish the (actual or potential) abuse of the dominant position of the relevant undertaking.

Accordingly, the General Court considered that the European Commission’s decision could not stand because it had failed to identify and establish to a sufficient legal standard to what abuse the state measure had led or could lead on the part of PPC.

The annulment of the decision appears to result from the failure of the European Commission to explore in a sufficiently explicit and well-articulated manner the nature of any actual or potential future abuse by PPC. In these circumstances, the General Court considered that it had no option but to overrule the European Commission.

In light of the General Court’s ruling and its acceptance that the mere possibility of an abuse would, if identified and established, be sufficient to find a violation of Article 106(1) in combination with Article 102, it may be asked how explicit such reasoning needs to be. On this point, the General Court reviewed and noted a few contrasting cases, amongst the following.

In Connect Austria (Case C-462/99, [2003] ECR I-051197) a public undertaking enjoying an exclusive right to operate an analogue mobile telecoms network received (at no charge) an allocation of frequencies allowing it to be the only operator to offer the complete range of mobile services that were technically available. Connect Austria, a new entrant, was granted for payment a licence for the provision of mobile communications services on the same frequency. The Court found that the state measures in question created a situation of distorted competition where inequality of opportunity could not be guaranteed. In particular, the public incumbent operator did not have to pay for access which created a situation where it could offer reduced rates which could not be matched by Connect Austria.

In Dusseldorp and Others (Case C-203/96, [1998] ECR I-4075) the Netherlands had designated the company AVR Chemie CV as the sole end-processor for the incineration of dangerous waste in a high-performance rotary furnace. Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, another company, was refused authorization to export its oil filters, being dangerous waste, to Germany, on the ground that, in accordance with the Dutch national provisions, treatment of that waste was to be carried out by AVR Chemie. The Court found that the prohibition on Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp amounted, in practice, to imposing an obligation on it to deliver its waste for recovery to AVR Chemie which held the exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste, even though the quality of processing available in another member state was comparable to that performed by the national undertaking. Distinguishing this case from the appeal before it, the General Court noted that “[t]he fact remains, however, that the Court identified the abuse to which the Netherlands statute led the undertaking holding a dominant position, namely the limitation of outlets to the detriment of consumers within the meaning of Article [102(b) TFEU]”.

Bigger Picture

For completeness, also on 20 September 2012 the General Court gave judgment on an appeal brought by PPC against a decision of the European Commission to accept commitments from Greece to ensure fair access to lignite deposits. Greece has agreed to hold public tenders to grant rights of exploitation to four lignite deposits. Since the commitments decision was based on the European Commission infringement decision, the General Court also struck down the commitments decision.

As a separate development, Greece has announced plans to scale down the operations of PPC and to dispose of a portion of its lignite operations as part of the state disposals needed to comply with the EU/ IMF bailout package. Thus, PPC will most likely sell part of its operations irrespective of the General Court ruling. Nevertheless, the judgment is important in affirming that the European Commission must identify and establish specific (actual or potential) abuses to support an infringement of Article 106 in combination with Article 102.

The European Commission can appeal the General Court’s rulings on points of law only and says that it will “carefully analyse” the verdicts. Since Article 106 (in combination with Article 102) cases tend to be relatively rare, it remains to be seen whether the European Commission will take the case further to seek to uphold its decision and reasoning. At the very least, in future cases the European Commission will likely want to explore in much greater detail any specific actual or future possible abuses that it maintains flow from a state measure, and even where it considers that potential abusive behaviours may seem self-evident.

Source: Case T-169/08, judgment of 20 September 2012.

 Suzanne Rab
 +44 20 7551 7581

 View Profile »

Written by:

King & Spalding

King & Spalding on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.