Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/cp210032en.pdf

Languages available: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 32/21

Luxembourg, 4 March 2021

Judgment in Case C-362/19 P Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona

The Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court by which the Commission’s decision classifying as State aid the tax scheme of four Spanish professional football clubs had been annulled

The action which had been brought by Fútbol Club Barcelona against that decision is definitively rejected A Spanish law adopted in 1990 obliged all Spanish professional sports clubs to convert into public limited sports companies, with the exception of professional sports clubs that had achieved a positive financial balance during the financial years preceding adoption of that law. Fútbol Club Barcelona (FCB), and three other professional football clubs which came within that exception – Club Atlético Osasuna (Pamplona), Athletic Club (Bilbao) and the Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid) – had thus chosen to continue operating in the form of non-profit legal persons and enjoyed, in that capacity, a special rate of income tax. As that specific tax rate remained, until 2016, below the rate applicable to public limited sports companies, the Commission took the view, by decision of 4 July 2016, 1 that that legislation, in introducing a preferential corporate tax rate for the four clubs concerned, constituted unlawful and incompatible State aid, and ordered Spain to discontinue it and to recover the individual aid provided to the beneficiaries of that scheme. (...)

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/cp210032es.pdf

Languages available: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA n.º 32/21

Luxemburgo, 4 de marzo de 2021

Sentencia en el asunto C-362/19 P Comisión/Fútbol Club Barcelona

El Tribunal de Justicia anula la sentencia del Tribunal General mediante la que se había anulado la Decisión de la Comisión por la que se calificó de ayuda de Estado el régimen fiscal de cuatro clubes de fútbol profesional españoles

Se desestima definitivamente el recurso que el Fútbol Club Barcelona había interpuesto contra esta Decisión Una ley española aprobada en 1990 obligaba a todos los clubes deportivos profesionales españoles a convertirse en sociedades anónimas deportivas, con excepción de aquellos que hubieran realizado resultados económicos positivos en los ejercicios anteriores a la aprobación de la ley. El Fútbol Club Barcelona («FC Barcelona») y otros tres clubes de fútbol profesional que podían acogerse a esta excepción ―el Club Atlético Osasuna (Pamplona), el Athletic Club (Bilbao) y el Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid)― optaron por seguir funcionando con la forma jurídica de entidad sin ánimo de lucro y disfrutaban, gracias a ello, de un tipo de gravamen específico sobre sus ingresos. Como este tipo de gravamen específico era inferior, hasta 2016, al aplicable a las sociedades anónimas deportivas, la Comisión consideró, mediante la Decisión de 4 de julio de 2016, 1 que esa legislación, al introducir una ventaja fiscal en materia de impuesto de sociedades en favor de los cuatro clubes mencionados, constituía un régimen de ayudas ilegal e incompatible, y ordenó a España que le pusiera fin y recuperara las ayudas individuales concedidas a los beneficiarios de dicho régimen. 

(...)

Today, the Protector of Citizens, Mr. Zoran Pašalić, and the Deputy Protector of Citizens, Ms. Nataša Tanjević PhD visited the Belgrade District Prison and talked to detainees about their accommodation conditions and their rights protection.

Mr. Pašalić and Ms. Tanjević visited the premises where the detainees reside and talked to several detainees about their accommodation and the how they can exercise their rights.

The Protector of Citizens and the Deputy talked with the Belgrade District Prison management about further activities to step up the accommodation conditions and the possibilities for organizing as many as possible fitting activities during the detention measure.

On Deputy Ombudsman Maija Sakslin's orders, three inspection visits were made in the assisted living facilities for the elderly of Siun sote – Joint municipal authority for North Karelia social and health services during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspections also covered the activities of client guidance in services for elderly people. During the inspections, more than 80 clients and their family members wanted to share their experiences.

Lack of places in intensified assisted living and the availability of nursing staff as challenges

During inspection visits, both the clients and the staff highlighted that access to intensified assisted living has become very congested.

The Deputy-Ombudsman considers that, if no suitable place for a client has been found within three months, it is not an appropriate practice to oblige him or her to choose a 24-hour intensified assisted living facility within the entire Siun sote area. The Deputy-Ombudsman underscores that an elderly person should not be officially assigned a service unit that is not suitable for him or her and then interpret a refusal to accept the service as a reason to start the queuing for a place in intensified assisted living all over again. The service unit may be unsuitable for the person, for example, because it is so far away from his or her immediate family that it would make it practically impossible for him or her to meet them anymore. The Deputy-Ombudsman also states that the legal obligation to provide services responding to the person's needs does not mean that 24-hour nursing or care could be provided, for example, in an inpatient ward of a health centre hospital for prolonged periods if there is no need for such care.

The Deputy-Ombudsman stressed that in spite of the challenges in the availability of staff, the failure to provide care cannot be justified by limited resources. The Deputy-Ombudsman required that the operating units ensure that the staff sizing is kept at the level required by law. The sizing must be kept above the minimum level if the clients’ functional capacity and service needs, and ensuring the quality of services so require. 

The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on services

The Deputy-Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that, during the coronavirus period, housing service units have significantly cut back their operations. The Deputy-Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate that housing service units do not maintain sufficient opportunities for outdoor recreation and other activities to maintain the functional capacity of the elderly people in need of special support placed in their care. There were also shortcomings in the organisation of health care services. 

The Deputy-Ombudsman found it positive that, during the coronavirus period, all families receiving informal care support had been contacted. However, the Deputy-Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that the informal care providers have not been provided with sufficient services to support them during the coronavirus period. The Deputy-Ombudsman noted that the closure of services may have led to unreasonable situations when combined with the fact that the service needs of some of the clients had accumulated even before the coronavirus period began. The restrictions of visits and movement have been investigated in case 5463/2020

The inspection records of Deputy-Ombudsman Maija Sakslin 1389/2020, 1760/2020 and 1823/2020 are published in Finnish on the Ombudsman's website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

Further information is available from Senior Legal Adviser Lotta Hämeen-Anttila, tel. +358 9 432 3353.