126 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM entertain legitimate expectations as to the compatibility of the measure with the internal market, given that they commenced work only after notification of the aid in question had been submitted to the Commission. This time the Court followed the longstanding interpretationof the concept of legitimate expectations, also stressing that “the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations presupposes that precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised, reliable sources have been given to the person concerned by the competent authorities of the European Union. In accordance with the Court of Justice’s settled case-law, that right applies to any individual in a situation in which an EU institution, body or agency, by giving that person precise assurances, has led him to entertain well-founded expectations. Precise, unconditional and consistent information, in whatever form it is given, constitutes such an assurance”. Since there was no precise nor unconditional communication from the EU Institutions towards the undertakings and the communication from national authorities or the lack thereof is irrelevant in this respect, the Court did not accept the appellants’ arguments. Moreover, the Court denied that the notification of the aid was a sufficient ground for legitimate expectations. The takeaways of this judgment are, in the first place, that it is always advisable to communicate with the Commission, once changes are needed at the national legal base, if the measure was subject to notification beforehand. Secondly, the Commission and the Courts are interpreting the condition of incentive effect strictly and do not allow any deviation from the general requirements without notification. Thirdly, granting aid for already started projects will result in incompatibility. Fourthly, there is no “right for the aid” on the beneficiaries’ side until it is not granted finally and in line with the State aid requirements. Lastly, legitimate expectation can only be based on the acts or communications of the EU Institutions, not on those of the national ones. 3.5. The A&O hostel and hotel case, the Commission’s duties during the compatibility assessment The most recent judgment52 from the General Court related to an undertaking active in the tourism sector was adopted in June 2019. The case was mainly about the Commission’s obligations and duties when making the compatibility 52 Judgment in case T-578/17 a& o hostel and hotel Berlin GmbH, successor in law to A&O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain GmbH v European Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2019:437).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==