Ioannis Platis - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Ioannis Platis
Το Σύνταγμα, 2019
Προβληματισμοί επί του επιτρεπτού του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας ΙΩΑΝΝΗ ΠΛΑΤΗ , Μ∆Ε ∆η... more Προβληματισμοί επί του επιτρεπτού του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας ΙΩΑΝΝΗ ΠΛΑΤΗ , Μ∆Ε ∆ημοσίου ∆ικαίου Το «πρόβλημα» του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας των νόμων συνιστά μία πάντα επίκαιρη συζήτηση. Η εξέταση της δυνατότητας της διοίκησης να ελέγχει τη συνταγματικότητα των νόμων έχει, παγίως, ως ση-μείο αναφοράς το δικαστικό έλεγχο συνταγματικότητας. Το αυξημένο δε ενδιαφέρον του υπό έρευνα ζητήματος έγκειται στο ότι η επίλυσή του α-παιτεί σύνθετη επιχειρηματολογία, αντλούμενη τόσο από το χώρο του Συ-νταγματικού όσο και από το χώρο του ∆ιοικητικού ∆ικαίου. Η παρούσα μελέτη δεν αρκείται να λάβει υπόψη και να συνοψίσει όλες τις ήδη υποστη-ριχθείσες θέσεις περί του θεμιτού ή μη του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματι-κότητας αλλά, περαιτέρω, διαλέγεται με αυτές και εισάγει, το πρώτον, προβληματισμούς ως προς επιμέρους πτυχές του. Ι. Εισαγωγικές σκέψεις Ο δικαιολογητικός λόγος, η χρησιμότητα, η σπουδαιότητα και προπά-ντων η εγγυητική λειτουργία του ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας ως συνταγ-ματικού θεσμού και ως συστατικού στοιχείου της έννοιας του Κράτους ∆ι-καίου απαιτεί τη διεξοδικότερη διερεύνηση του ζητήματος, ποιοι είναι τελι-κά αρμόδιοι να ελέγχουν τη συμφωνία του συνόλου των κανόνων δικαίου κατώτερης τυπικής ισχύος προς τις θεμελιώδεις υπερνομοθετικής ισχύος επιταγές του Συντάγματος; Ο δικαστικός έλεγχος της συνταγματικότητας αποτελεί την επικρατούσα μορφή άσκησής του, και την πλέον αποδεκτή, λόγω της ρητής συνταγματικής κατοχύρωσής της στο άρθρο 93 παρ. 4 Σ. Μάλιστα, ο ρόλος του δικαστή ως ελεγκτή της εν ευρεία εννοία νομιμότη-τας, ή άλλως συνταγματικότητας, δικαιολογείται και από το γεγονός ότι η νομιμοποίησή του ως άμεσο όργανο του κράτους είναι περισσότερο φιλε-λεύθερη, καθώς στηρίζεται στον κανόνα δικαίου, σε σχέση τόσο με την γνήσια δημοκρατική νομιμοποίηση της Βουλής όσο και με την δημοκρατική
The main legal issue of the judgment at hand consists in the definition of «existing aid» as oppo... more The main legal issue of the judgment at hand consists in the definition of «existing aid» as opposed to «new aid». That distinction involves far-reaching implications on the application of EU state aid rules on grants given by Member States to third parties as beneficiaries.
T-219/10, Autogrill Espana SA / European Commission of 7 November 2014 & T-399/11, Banco Santande... more T-219/10, Autogrill Espana SA / European Commission of 7 November 2014 & T-399/11, Banco Santander SA-Santusa Holding SL / European Commission of 7 November 2014
Comments upon Case C-39/14, BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH, Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erb... more Comments upon Case C-39/14, BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH, Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erbs v Landkreis Jerichower Land of the CJEU
This is yet another very interesting and well-decided case delivered by the EFTA Court, on allege... more This is yet another very interesting and well-decided case delivered by the EFTA Court, on alleged State aid granted to the recipient undertaking, which won a tender procedure and was awarded a lease contract. The Court referred to settled case law of the CJEU on private vendor test (PVT) in its attempt to prove that the EFTA Surveillance Authority (EFTA) conducted its preliminary examination in a faulty manner and, therefore, unlawfully upheld in its contested decision that there was no State aid, without initiating the formal investigation procedure. The part of the judgment that has to do with the PVT test refers to the recent landmark case of Land Burgenland[2] which is the main authority on the applicability of the PVT, along with earlier delivered cases[3] of the CJEU.
This case revolves around the question of public funding of financial institutions amid the gener... more This case revolves around the question of public funding of financial institutions amid the general financial crisis. However its most interesting aspect has to do with the applicability of the private investor test to the facts of the case, that is to say whether the Commission has to conduct its overall compatibility assessment of the specific state aid measure in the light of the private investor principle or not. The main facts of the case can be summarized as follows.
Not a long time ago, the CJEU ruled on a couple of cases[1] about the general state aid regime of... more Not a long time ago, the CJEU ruled on a couple of cases[1] about the general state aid regime of social housing [2] companies in the Netherlands. They both referred to the compatibility of the terms under which Dutch state support is available to social housing companies (also known under the abbreviation wocos).
The Italian authorities decided to subsidize the so called "television digital switch over" by gr... more The Italian authorities decided to subsidize the so called "television digital switch over" by granting a fixed sum to consumers (at first place 150 Euros which was later reduced to 70 Euros). The beneficiaries of that State initiative would be only the digital terrestrial broadcasters by virtue of the accrued profits from selling decoders to consumers. The scheme for digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators was regarded by the Court as unlawfully implemented by the Italian government and as such it constituted State aid which was incompatible with the common market and subject to recovery. The Commission, in its recovery decision, did not specify neither the exact amount of aid to be recovered or the exact mechanism of recovery to be implemented and the identity of the beneficiaries. This obligation was left upon the Italian authorities, as is usually the case in recovery proceedings. The Italian authorities participated in a lengthy round of exchanging correspondence with Commission in order to ensure the latter's approval on the method for the definition of the beneficiaries and the amount subject to repayment by each of them. Ultimately, they concluded that the most suitable method to estimate the aid to be recovered was a consumer survey able to point which market operators and to what extent they had benefited by the subsidized purchases of decoders. Mediaset, a company designated as one of the beneficiaries of the State aid scheme, paid the enunciated amount of aid (approximately 6 million Euros) and then turned to national courts seeking to challenge the level of recovered aid and annul the order of payment, in particular on account of an alleged misapplication of the quantification criteria. In the context of the national court proceedings, the national judge referred a number of questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The central issue to be cleared out by the CJEU could be epitomized in whether the national judge is bound by statements of the Commission, made subsequent to the decision, concerning the precise amount to be recovered from a specified beneficiary. Moreover the national court asked whether it could be competent to find that the recovery amount was zero or the aid should be always a positive sum. The answer of the CJEU was unambiguous. With respect to the first leg of the preliminary reference, it held that the national court is bound by the recovery decision, it is not, however, bound by the positions adopted by the Commission in the execution of that decision. Nevertheless, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, the national court must take the statements of position into account as a factor in the assessment of the dispute before it. In relation to the second part of the interlocutory question, it responded that the national court may conclude, without calling into question the validity of the European Commission's decision or the obligation to repay the aid in question, that the amount of aid to be repaid is equal to zero where that follows from the calculations made on the basis of all the relevant information of which it has been made aware.
Το Σύνταγμα, 2019
Προβληματισμοί επί του επιτρεπτού του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας ΙΩΑΝΝΗ ΠΛΑΤΗ , Μ∆Ε ∆η... more Προβληματισμοί επί του επιτρεπτού του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας ΙΩΑΝΝΗ ΠΛΑΤΗ , Μ∆Ε ∆ημοσίου ∆ικαίου Το «πρόβλημα» του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας των νόμων συνιστά μία πάντα επίκαιρη συζήτηση. Η εξέταση της δυνατότητας της διοίκησης να ελέγχει τη συνταγματικότητα των νόμων έχει, παγίως, ως ση-μείο αναφοράς το δικαστικό έλεγχο συνταγματικότητας. Το αυξημένο δε ενδιαφέρον του υπό έρευνα ζητήματος έγκειται στο ότι η επίλυσή του α-παιτεί σύνθετη επιχειρηματολογία, αντλούμενη τόσο από το χώρο του Συ-νταγματικού όσο και από το χώρο του ∆ιοικητικού ∆ικαίου. Η παρούσα μελέτη δεν αρκείται να λάβει υπόψη και να συνοψίσει όλες τις ήδη υποστη-ριχθείσες θέσεις περί του θεμιτού ή μη του διοικητικού ελέγχου συνταγματι-κότητας αλλά, περαιτέρω, διαλέγεται με αυτές και εισάγει, το πρώτον, προβληματισμούς ως προς επιμέρους πτυχές του. Ι. Εισαγωγικές σκέψεις Ο δικαιολογητικός λόγος, η χρησιμότητα, η σπουδαιότητα και προπά-ντων η εγγυητική λειτουργία του ελέγχου συνταγματικότητας ως συνταγ-ματικού θεσμού και ως συστατικού στοιχείου της έννοιας του Κράτους ∆ι-καίου απαιτεί τη διεξοδικότερη διερεύνηση του ζητήματος, ποιοι είναι τελι-κά αρμόδιοι να ελέγχουν τη συμφωνία του συνόλου των κανόνων δικαίου κατώτερης τυπικής ισχύος προς τις θεμελιώδεις υπερνομοθετικής ισχύος επιταγές του Συντάγματος; Ο δικαστικός έλεγχος της συνταγματικότητας αποτελεί την επικρατούσα μορφή άσκησής του, και την πλέον αποδεκτή, λόγω της ρητής συνταγματικής κατοχύρωσής της στο άρθρο 93 παρ. 4 Σ. Μάλιστα, ο ρόλος του δικαστή ως ελεγκτή της εν ευρεία εννοία νομιμότη-τας, ή άλλως συνταγματικότητας, δικαιολογείται και από το γεγονός ότι η νομιμοποίησή του ως άμεσο όργανο του κράτους είναι περισσότερο φιλε-λεύθερη, καθώς στηρίζεται στον κανόνα δικαίου, σε σχέση τόσο με την γνήσια δημοκρατική νομιμοποίηση της Βουλής όσο και με την δημοκρατική
The main legal issue of the judgment at hand consists in the definition of «existing aid» as oppo... more The main legal issue of the judgment at hand consists in the definition of «existing aid» as opposed to «new aid». That distinction involves far-reaching implications on the application of EU state aid rules on grants given by Member States to third parties as beneficiaries.
T-219/10, Autogrill Espana SA / European Commission of 7 November 2014 & T-399/11, Banco Santande... more T-219/10, Autogrill Espana SA / European Commission of 7 November 2014 & T-399/11, Banco Santander SA-Santusa Holding SL / European Commission of 7 November 2014
Comments upon Case C-39/14, BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH, Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erb... more Comments upon Case C-39/14, BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH, Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erbs v Landkreis Jerichower Land of the CJEU
This is yet another very interesting and well-decided case delivered by the EFTA Court, on allege... more This is yet another very interesting and well-decided case delivered by the EFTA Court, on alleged State aid granted to the recipient undertaking, which won a tender procedure and was awarded a lease contract. The Court referred to settled case law of the CJEU on private vendor test (PVT) in its attempt to prove that the EFTA Surveillance Authority (EFTA) conducted its preliminary examination in a faulty manner and, therefore, unlawfully upheld in its contested decision that there was no State aid, without initiating the formal investigation procedure. The part of the judgment that has to do with the PVT test refers to the recent landmark case of Land Burgenland[2] which is the main authority on the applicability of the PVT, along with earlier delivered cases[3] of the CJEU.
This case revolves around the question of public funding of financial institutions amid the gener... more This case revolves around the question of public funding of financial institutions amid the general financial crisis. However its most interesting aspect has to do with the applicability of the private investor test to the facts of the case, that is to say whether the Commission has to conduct its overall compatibility assessment of the specific state aid measure in the light of the private investor principle or not. The main facts of the case can be summarized as follows.
Not a long time ago, the CJEU ruled on a couple of cases[1] about the general state aid regime of... more Not a long time ago, the CJEU ruled on a couple of cases[1] about the general state aid regime of social housing [2] companies in the Netherlands. They both referred to the compatibility of the terms under which Dutch state support is available to social housing companies (also known under the abbreviation wocos).
The Italian authorities decided to subsidize the so called "television digital switch over" by gr... more The Italian authorities decided to subsidize the so called "television digital switch over" by granting a fixed sum to consumers (at first place 150 Euros which was later reduced to 70 Euros). The beneficiaries of that State initiative would be only the digital terrestrial broadcasters by virtue of the accrued profits from selling decoders to consumers. The scheme for digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators was regarded by the Court as unlawfully implemented by the Italian government and as such it constituted State aid which was incompatible with the common market and subject to recovery. The Commission, in its recovery decision, did not specify neither the exact amount of aid to be recovered or the exact mechanism of recovery to be implemented and the identity of the beneficiaries. This obligation was left upon the Italian authorities, as is usually the case in recovery proceedings. The Italian authorities participated in a lengthy round of exchanging correspondence with Commission in order to ensure the latter's approval on the method for the definition of the beneficiaries and the amount subject to repayment by each of them. Ultimately, they concluded that the most suitable method to estimate the aid to be recovered was a consumer survey able to point which market operators and to what extent they had benefited by the subsidized purchases of decoders. Mediaset, a company designated as one of the beneficiaries of the State aid scheme, paid the enunciated amount of aid (approximately 6 million Euros) and then turned to national courts seeking to challenge the level of recovered aid and annul the order of payment, in particular on account of an alleged misapplication of the quantification criteria. In the context of the national court proceedings, the national judge referred a number of questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The central issue to be cleared out by the CJEU could be epitomized in whether the national judge is bound by statements of the Commission, made subsequent to the decision, concerning the precise amount to be recovered from a specified beneficiary. Moreover the national court asked whether it could be competent to find that the recovery amount was zero or the aid should be always a positive sum. The answer of the CJEU was unambiguous. With respect to the first leg of the preliminary reference, it held that the national court is bound by the recovery decision, it is not, however, bound by the positions adopted by the Commission in the execution of that decision. Nevertheless, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, the national court must take the statements of position into account as a factor in the assessment of the dispute before it. In relation to the second part of the interlocutory question, it responded that the national court may conclude, without calling into question the validity of the European Commission's decision or the obligation to repay the aid in question, that the amount of aid to be repaid is equal to zero where that follows from the calculations made on the basis of all the relevant information of which it has been made aware.