Estonia / Supreme Court / 3-20-1684

Väinamere Liinid OÜ v. Ministry of Justice
Policy area
Competition
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
20/05/2022
  • Estonia / Supreme Court / 3-20-1684

    Key facts of the case:

    The applicant Väinamere Liinid OÜ requested compensation for the damage caused by the Supreme Court by its decision No. 3-16-1603/75 of 17 October 2019. According to the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, in case of a claim for compensation of harm caused by a court decision, the respondent is the Ministry of Justice. The applicant found that, in the case No. 3-16-1603/75, the Supreme Court determined the basis of the appeal incorrectly, and as a result, the applicant was not able to use the right to claim damages caused by unlawful granting of state aid.  

    The case No. 3-16-1603/75 concerned a public procurement conducted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs to find a carrier for specific ferry lines. Bids were submitted by the applicant and joint bidders TS Laevad OÜ and OÜ TS Shipping, the latter bid was recognised as successful as it was at a lower price. The applicant challenged the decision in court, but the appeal was rejected. The Supreme Court found that the procuring entity was not expected to have doubts that the offer of the joint bidders had an unreasonably low cost and did not have to analyse whether they might have received unlawful state aid.  

    The applicant filed a new claim with the Administrative Court, finding that the Supreme Court had caused the applicant damages by leaving the claim based on EU law unresolved and not waiting for the outcome of the appeal proceedings in the European Commission, which would have proved the granting of unlawful state aid. The applicant found that it was necessary to rely directly on EU law (prohibition of unlawful state aid; TFEU Art. 107 p. 1, Art. 108 p. 3). The Administrative Court and the Circuit Court rejected the claim and the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The Supreme Court analysed the conditions of liability of a Member State resulting from the violation of EU law committed by the court of the last instance, focusing primarily on the requirement of manifest infringement, and whether these conditions are met in this specific case.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Court agreed with the applicant that the incorrect determination of the object of the complaint may lead to state liability under EU law, if the conditions set in the practice of the CJEU are met. However, the Supreme Court found that the conditions of liability of the Member State arising from the activity of the court of last instance, formed in the practice of the CJEU, have not been met in this case. The decision found that the Supreme Court did not commit a manifest infringement by the decision No. 3-16-1603/75 when it determined the object of the dispute, did not ask the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, and did not suspend the proceedings for the time of the European Commission proceedings. As a result, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and the applicant’s claim for damages. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    13. The Chamber interprets the complaint in such a way that, in the applicant's opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court No. 3-16-1603/75 violated their right to an effective remedy (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art. 47), because they were not able to assert their substantive legal claim based on TFEU Article 108(3). 

    Article 108(3) of the TFEU referred to by the applicant has direct legal effect, i.e. it is a provision of EU law giving rights to a person. Therefore, the person has the right to claim compensation for damage caused by the granting of unlawful state aid to a competitor (see e.g. the Commission's Notice on the enforcement of State aid rules by national courts (2021/C 305/01), p. 4.2.3.4 with references to the practice of the CJEU). However, it is a provision of substantive law. When describing the objectionable act from the position of the applicant, it can be deduced that the Supreme Court did not incorrectly interpret and apply Article 108 of the TFEU, but violated the applicant's right to an effective remedy arising from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. 

    Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU has direct legal effect. According to it, anyone whose rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before the courts under the conditions laid down in the article. If there are no specific provisions in EU law to ensure the principle of effective judicial protection of rights arising from Article 47 of the Charter, the shaping of the provisions for administrative court proceedings is part of the procedural autonomy of the Member State. At the same time, both the design of the provisions and their application must take into account the principles of equivalence (the protection of the rights of individuals arising from EU law must not be less favourable than in the case of similar domestic legal remedies) and efficiency (the use of the rights granted by the EU legal system must not be practically impossible or excessively difficult) (see e.g. C-234/17: XC et al., p. 21-23; C-497/20: Randstad Italia, p. 56-58). 

    ...

    17. In resolving this case, there is no doubt that the allegedly violated provision (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art. 47) gives the applicant a right (see in detail p. 13). Therefore, the Chamber below highlights the most important positions of the CJEU regarding the second condition mentioned above – "manifest infringement".

    ...

    24. The first criterion mentioned in p. 15 of this decision has been met. As indicated above (see p. 13 of the decision), the provision allegedly violated by the Supreme Court – the right to an effective remedy provided for in Art. 47 of the Charter – gives the applicant rights (see also C-497/20: Randstad Italia, p. 80). In view of this finding, there is no need to submit the second preliminary ruling question requested by the applicant (see p. 3.7 of this decision) to the CJEU. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    13. Kolleegium tõlgendab kaebust viisil, et kaebaja arvates rikkus Riigikohtu otsus nr 3-16-1603/75 tema õigust tõhusale õiguskaitsele (EL põhiõiguste harta art 47), sest tal ei olnud võimalik maksma panna oma ELTL art 108 lg-le 3 tuginevat materiaalõiguslikku nõuet.  

    Kaebaja osutatud ELTL art 108 lg-l 3 on vahetu õigusmõju, st tegu on isikule õigusi andva EL õiguse normiga. Seejuures on isikul õigus nõuda kahju hüvitamist, mis on tekitatud konkurendile ebaseadusliku riigiabi andmisega (vt nt Komisjoni teatis riigiabi eeskirjade täitmise tagamise kohta liikmesriikide kohtutes (2021/C 305/01), p 4.2.3.4 koos viidetega Euroopa Kohtu praktikale). Tegu on aga materiaalõigusliku normiga. Kaebaja eeltoodud seisukohtadest etteheidetava teo kirjeldamisel on tuletatav, et Riigikohus ei tõlgendanud ega kohaldanud ekslikult mitte ELTL art-t 108, vaid rikkus EL põhiõiguste harta art-st 47 tulenevat kaebaja õigust tõhusale õiguskaitsele.  

    EL põhiõiguste harta art-l 47 on vahetu õigusmõju. Selle järgi on igaühel, kelle liidu õigusega tagatud õigusi või vabadusi rikutakse, selles artiklis kehtestatud tingimuste kohaselt õigus tõhusale õiguskaitsevahendile kohtus. Kui harta art-st 47 tuleneva õiguste tõhusa kohtuliku kaitse põhimõtte tagamiseks puuduvad EL õiguses täpsemad normid, kuulub halduskohtumenetluse normide kujundamine liikmesriigi menetlusautonoomia hulka. Seejuures tuleb aga nii normide kujundamisel kui ka nende kohaldamisel arvestada EL õiguses kehtivate võrdväärsuse (isikutele EL õigusest tulenevate õiguste kaitse ei tohi olla vähem soodne kui sarnaste riigisiseste õiguskaitsevahendite puhul) ja tõhususe (EL õiguskorraga antud õiguste kasutamine ei tohi olla praktiliselt võimatu ega ülemäära keeruline) põhimõtetega (vt nt C-234/17: XC jt, p-d 21-23; C-497/20: Randstad Italia, p-d 56-58).  

    ...

    17. Käesoleva asja lahendamisel pole kahtlust, et väidetavalt rikutud norm (EL põhiõiguste harta art 47) annab kaebajale õiguse (vt täpsemalt p 13). Seepärast toob kolleegium alljärgnevalt esile Euroopa Kohtu olulisemad seisukohad teise eeltoodud tingimuse – „ilmselge rikkumine“ – kohta. 

    ...

    24. Käesoleva otsuse p-s 15 nimetatud esimene kriteerium on täidetud. Nagu eespool osutatud (vt otsuse p 13), annab Riigikohtu poolt väidetavalt rikutud norm – harta art-s 47 sätestatud õigus tõhusale õiguskaitsevahendile – kaebajale õigusi (vt ka C-497/20: Randstad Italia, p 80). Seda tõdemust silmas pidades puudub vajadus ka kaebaja taotletud teise eelotsuse küsimuse (vt käesoleva otsuse p 3 alap 7) Euroopa Kohtule esitamiseks.