Page - 11 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2019
Image of the Page - 11 -
Text of the Page - 11 -
ALJ 2019 Article 106 (2) TFEU in Case Law 11
B. Balancing in Context
1. Balancing in the Absence of Secondary Legislation and Soft Law
Despite this promising development in favour of a ‘balancing test’, its structure and elements as
well as the required intensity of control are still subject to some discussion. Case law and
corresponding analyses vary to a considerable degree.53 Especially in situations, in which the CJEU
cannot resort to secondary or soft law, the balancing and the elements that are taken into
consideration seem to differ from case to case. Only a general ‘necessity test’ is applied on a regular
basis. In this regard, the CJEU investigates whether a derogation from the Treaty rules is necessary
for the provision of an SGEI. For example, in the case AG2R the CJEU found that an undertaking,
which is obliged to offer cover to the employees of all undertakings in the French traditional bakery
sector, would suffer from an increasing share of ‘bad risks’ resulting in a rise of costs which would
consequently lead to lower quality services if it were not granted the exclusive right (i.e. statutory
monopoly) to manage that scheme.54 The annulment of such a right ‘could have the result of
making it impossible for the body concerned to accomplish the tasks of general economic interest
[…] under economically acceptable conditions’.55 Based on that assessment the CJEU considered a
derogation from the rules on competition as permissible without referring to any further
requirements. In contrast, the CJEU explains in the case OTOC that Article 106 (2) TFEU – if it were
indeed applicable to a system of compulsory training for chartered accountants whose SGEI nature
the court seriously doubted – could not be applied in the situation at hand, inter alia because the
restrictions on competition go ‘beyond what is necessary’56, thereby indicating a test of ‘strict
necessity’. An explicit and detailed assessment of proportionality stricto sensu, however, has not
been applied in this context by the ECJ so far; though, the General Court, (at least) refers to the
requirements of necessity and proportionality that can be derived from Article 86 (2) EC (= Article
106 (2) TFEU) in the BUPA case.57
Explicit references to a least restrictive measure requirement can be found in the case Commission
v Italian Republic58, where the Commission had to prove the existence of a least restrictive
measure, as well as the cases Dusseldorp59 and Sydhavnens60, where the Member States had to
53 For example, the ‚balancing test‘ has been described as a test of (strict) necessity (NINA NOLTE, DEREGULIERUNG VON
MONOPOLEN UND DIENSTLEISTUNGEN VON ALLGEMEINEM WIRTSCHAFTLICHEN INTERESSE 90 (2004); SVEN SIMON, LIBERALISIERUNG
VON DIENSTLEISTUNGEN DER DASEINSVORSORGE IM WTO- UND EU-RECHT 304 (2009)), of suitability (Julian Baquero Cruz,
Beyond Competition: Services of General Interest and European Community Law, in EU LAW AND THE WELFARE STATE,
169, 195 (Gráinne de Búrca ed., 2005)) and of proportionality (BUENDIA SIERRA, supra note 35, at 300 et seq;
Wernhard Moeschel, Service public und europäischer Binnenmarkt, 58 JuristenZeitung 1021, 1026 (2003); Gareth
Davies, What Does Article 86 Actually Do?, in THE CHANGING LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST IN
EUROPE, 51, 66 (Markus Krajewski, Ulla Neergaard and Johan Van de Gronden ed., 2009); Bekkedal, supra note 46,
at 68 et seq; MARKUS KRAJEWSKI, GRUNDSTRUKTUREN DES RECHTS ÖFFENTLICHER DIENSTLEISTUNGEN 426 (2011)).
54 Case C-437/09 AG2R, ECLI:EU:C:2011:112, para 77.
55 Id., at para 80.
56 Case C-1/12 Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas, ECLI:EU:C:2013:127, para 107.
57 Case T-289/03 BUPA, ECLI:EU:T:2008:29, para 131 et seq.
58 Case C-157/94 Commission v Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:1997:499, para 58; Case C-158/94 Commission v Italy,
ECLI:EU:C:1997:500, para 54; Case C-159/94 Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:1997:501, para 101 et seq.
59 Case C-203/96 Dusseldorp, ECLI:EU:C:1998:316, para 67.
60 Case C-209/98 Sydhavnens, ECLI:EU:C:2000:279, para 80.
back to the
book Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2019"
Austrian Law Journal
Volume 1/2019
- Title
- Austrian Law Journal
- Volume
- 1/2019
- Author
- Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
- Editor
- Brigitta Lurger
- Elisabeth Staudegger
- Stefan Storr
- Location
- Graz
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- German
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- Size
- 19.1 x 27.5 cm
- Pages
- 126
- Keywords
- Recht, Gesetz, Rechtswissenschaft, Jurisprudenz
- Categories
- Zeitschriften Austrian Law Journal