Joris Gruyters

EU Law PhD Researcher KU Leuven, Consumer, Competition, Market; Master of Laws, London School of Economics.

[Trends @trendsbelgie]

Apple moet een som van 13 miljard dollar aan illegale belastingvoordelen terugbetalen aan Ierland. Een ongezien hoog bedrag. Apple verloor zo onverwacht een rechtszaal die al sinds 2016 loopt, en dat is niet zonder gevolgen, aldus @JorisGrtrs. https://t.co/7B1iZOxWJj

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

Happy to have contributed to this project, together with @LennardMichaux , with a chapter on cultural State aid (chapter 11).

[Elgar Law @Elgar_Law]

European Union Economic Law and #Culture, edited by Evangelia Psychogiopoulou of @eliamepgr and Sarah Schoenmaekers of @MaastrichtU and @uhasselt

More information ➡️ https://t.co/YR4MzacyaE

🆓 Read Chapter 1 ➡️ https://t.co/5YKNSi5xe3

@CaterinaSganga @JorisGrtrs @miraburri

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

Europese rechter vernietigt goedkeuring voor miljardensteun aan Air France https://t.co/N9QowrQyOv

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

State action defence's legal test is opaque and inconsistent w other justifications of Art. 102. Exceptional acceptance may be understood in light of the circumstances, but assessment under e.g. objective justification or Art. 106 could improve its predictability. 6/6

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

https://t.co/CyEoyBHPUV
I wrote a contribution for the @Wolters_Kluwer competition law blog on the BEH v. Commission case (T-136/19). It concerns an access refusal of the Bulgarian Energy Holding and its subsidiaries. Some key points why I think the case is worth reading:

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

The judgement results in an (extremely) rare acceptance of a State action defence. This test faces some unclarities, for instance how the alternative conditions of ‘irresistible pressure’ and ‘autonomy’ should be interpreted. 5/6

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

@destandaard Zoals het voorontwerp er nu uitziet: (i) excl bevoegdheid handel vd EU wordt genegeerd, (ii) verwarring tssn douane-unie en vrij verkeer, (iii) foute toep. art. 36 VWEU en (iv) onvolledige uitleg security exception art. XXI GATT.

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

@vrtnws Twee foutjes in dit artikel:
1. Illegaliteit steun niet het hoofdpunt, wel herkwalificatie individuele steun --> steunstelsel
2. Mogelijk beroep is zonder voorwerp. Principe indiv. steun / steunstelsel bevestigd dr hvj en in renvoi + indiv. besluiten commissie al in 2019 genomen.

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

The judgement proves that the use of capital instruments is risky and, even in times of economic disruption, subject to stringent conditions and evidence. The TF, albeit flexible, seems to give sufficient tools for courts to thoroughly review EC decisions in this context (16/16).

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

This week marked another important #Stateaid judgement in the airline industry, and Ryanair’s (+ Condor’s) biggest win so far. Some of the highlights of the (508 paragraph!) GC judgement. 👇 (1/16)
https://t.co/ADvHso6J1d

[Joris Gruyters @JorisGrtrs]

(ii) EC failed to state reasons as to why a remuneration for the slots, rather than a free of charge transfer, would not harm a) the commercial interest for purchasers and b) the principle of non-compensation that applies to slot divestiture (15/16).