Findings of the Court
53As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the action brought by Larco for annulment of Decision 2014/539, which gave rise to the judgment of 26March 2020, Larko v Commission (C‑244/18P, EU:C:2020:238), has no bearing on the enforceability of that decision and, consequently, on the present dispute. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, as is clear from Article278 TFEU, in the absence of a decision of the General Court to the contrary, an action for annulment does not have suspensory effect. Thus, in principle, the bringing of an action for annulment does not alter the enforceability of the decision the annulment of which is sought (see, to that effect, judgment of 9July 2015, Commission v France, C‑63/14, EU:C:2015:458, paragraph47).
54As to the Hellenic Republic’s argument that, in its Notice on the recovery of unlawful and incompatible State aid, the Commission states that, where an action against a recovery decision is pending, provisional implementation of that decision may be achieved, for instance, by way of a payment by the beneficiary of the full recovery amount into an escrow account, it is sufficient to note that, in the present case, that Member State has failed to provide any evidence demonstrating such a payment.
55Principally, it must be recalled, in the first place, that it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the Member State to which a decision requiring recovery of unlawful aid declared incompatible with the internal market is addressed is obliged, under the fourth paragraph of Article288 TFEU, to take all measures necessary to ensure implementation of that decision. It must succeed in actually recovering the sums owed in order to eliminate the distortion of competition caused by the anticompetitive advantage procured by that aid (judgment of 14November 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑93/17, EU:C:2018:903, paragraph68 and the case-law cited).
56The recovery of unlawful aid declared incompatible with the internal market must be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission’s decision. To this effect, the Member States concerned are required to take all necessary steps which are available in their respective legal systems, including provisional measures, without prejudice to EU law (judgment of 14November 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑93/17, EU:C:2018:903, paragraph69 and the case-law cited).
57In cases in which the unlawful State aid paid and declared incompatible with the internal market must be recovered from recipient undertakings which are in financial difficulty or are insolvent, it should be recalled that such difficulties do not affect the obligation to recover. The Member State is therefore required, as the case may be, to bring about the liquidation of that company, to have its claim registered as one of that company’s liabilities or to take any other measure enabling the aid to be recovered (judgment of 17January 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑363/16, EU:C:2018:12, paragraph36).
58In particular, according to settled case-law, restoration of the previous situation and elimination of the distortion of competition resulting from that aid may, in principle, be achieved through registration of the debt relating to the repayment of the aid in question in the schedule of liabilities (judgment of 17January 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑363/16, EU:C:2018:12, paragraph37 and the case-law cited).
59However, it must be noted that such registration can satisfy the recovery obligation only if, where the State authorities are unable to recover the full amount of aid, the insolvency proceedings result in the liquidation of the undertaking, that is to say, in the definitive cessation of its activities, which the State authorities are able to bring about in their capacity as shareholders or creditors (judgment of 17January 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑363/16, EU:C:2018:12, paragraph38).
60It follows that the definitive cessation of the activities of the undertaking receiving aid is necessary only where the recovery of the entire amount of the aid remains impossible throughout the insolvency proceedings (judgment of 17January 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑363/16, EU:C:2018:12, paragraph39).
61It should also be recalled that, concerning infringement proceedings under Article260(2) TFEU, the reference date which must be used for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations is that of the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued under that provision (judgment of 14November 2018, Commission v Greece, C‑93/17, EU:C:2018:903, paragraph73 and the case-law cited).
62In the present case, as has been recalled in paragraph20 of the present judgment, since the Commission sent the Hellenic Republic a supplementary letter of formal notice on 25January 2019, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article260(2) TFEU, the reference date mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment is the date of expiry of the period prescribed in that letter, namely 25March 2019.
63It is clear that, at that date, the Greek authorities had not complied with the obligation to recover the aid in question.
64As is apparent from paragraphs23 to 25, 45 and 52 of the present judgment, the Greek authorities did not adopt measures for the recovery of the aid in question until after 29January 2020, the date on which the present action was brought. First, Law No4664/2020 establishing the special administration scheme was in fact adopted on 14February 2020, that is to say almost one year after the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice and almost six years after the date of expiry of the initial period for implementation of Decision 2014/539. Second, it is common ground that the Hellenic Republic put Larco under special administration on 28February 2020. Third, the request that the amount corresponding to the aid in question be repaid within 30days was sent to Larco on 13March 2020. Fourth and lastly, on 14May 2020, the Greek authorities sent the Greek tax authorities a letter in which they requested that the aid in question be recovered in full from Larco.
65In those circumstances, the Hellenic Republic cannot validly claim that, on the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice, it had taken all the measures necessary to implement the procedure for recovery of the State aid at issue.
66In the second place, as regards the failure to inform the Commission, it should be observed that, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of 25January 2019, the Hellenic Republic had not submitted to the Commission the information set out in Article5 of Decision 2014/539.
67It must therefore be held that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment establishing the failure to fulfil obligations, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article260(1) TFEU.