ORDER OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

19 June 2008 ([\*](#Footnote*))

(Appeal – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Slovak Republic – Act of Accession – Allocation of allowances – Period 2008-12 – Conditions – Whether directly affected – Inadmissibility)

In Case C‐6/08 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 26 December 2007,

**US Steel Košice s.r.o.,** established in Košice (Slovakia), represented by C. Thomas, Solicitor, and E. Vermulst, advocaat,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

**Commission of the European Communities,** represented by U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of L. Bay Larsen, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann and C. Toader (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

**Order**

1        By its appeal, US Steel Košice s.r.o. (‘the appellant’) asks the Court of Justice to set aside the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities of 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07 *US Steel Košice* v *Commission* (‘the order under appeal’), by which it dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s application for the annulment of the Commission
decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Slovakia
for the period from 2008 to 2012 (‘the contested decision’).

**Legal context**

*The Act of Accession relating to the Slovak Republic*

2        The Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the
Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the
Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ
2003 L 236, p. 33; ‘the Act of Accession’) provides, in Article 24, for transitional measures which, as regards the Slovak
Republic, are set out in Annex XIV thereto (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 915).

3        Point 2(a) of Chapter 4 (Competition policy) of Annex XIV states:

‘Notwithstanding Articles 87 [EC] and 88 [EC], [the Slovak Republic] may apply until the end of the fiscal year 2009 [a] corporate
income tax exemption ... to one beneficiary in the steel industry, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i)      the aid beneficiary caps its production of flat products and its sales of flat products (hot-rolled, cold-rolled and coated)
in the enlarged EU ...;

(ii)      the beneficiary does not extend its range of groups of finished products existing on 13 December 2002;

(iii) the total aid granted to the beneficiary ... does not exceed a total of USD 500 million ...;

...’

4        Point 2(b) of Chapter 4 of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession requires the Slovak Republic to supply half‐yearly monitoring
reports containing information as regards the aid beneficiary, with the last report to be submitted by the end of April 2010,
unless agreed otherwise by the Commission, the Council of the European Union and the Slovak Republic.

5        Point 2(d) of Chapter 4 of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession provides:

‘If the total aid reaches the maximum admissible level set out in subparagraph (a)(iii) before the end of the fiscal year
2009, the tax exemption shall be discontinued and the normal corporate income tax shall be due by the beneficiary for that
part of the company’s earnings whose exemption from the tax would result in exceeding the maximum admissible level.’

*Directive 2003/87/EC*

6        Article 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32;
‘the Directive’) establishes such a scheme in order to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular of carbon
dioxide, in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner.

7        The Directive thus seeks to implement the Community’s obligations to reduce emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. In this respect, the Council adopted Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002 concerning
the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder (OJ 2002 L 130, p. 1).

8        According to Article 2 of the Directive, the Directive is to apply to emissions from the activities listed in Annex I thereto,
including installations for the production and processing of ferrous metals.

9        Article 11 of the Directive provides for an initial period for the allocation of allowances from 2005 to 2007, followed by
a second period from 2008 to 2012 (‘the second allocation period’).

10      The conditions and procedures under which the national authorities are to allocate allowances to operators of installations
on the basis of a national allocation plan (‘NAP’) during those two allocation periods are provided for in Articles 9 to 11
of the Directive.

11      The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Directive provides:

‘For each period referred to in Article 11(1) and (2), each Member State shall develop a [NAP] stating the total quantity
of allowances that it intends to allocate for that period and how it proposes to allocate them. The [NAP] shall be based on
objective and transparent criteria, including those listed in Annex III, taking due account of comments from the public. ...’

12      The second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Directive requires Member States to publish and notify a NAP to the Commission
and to the other Member States for each allocation period.

13      Article 9(3) of the Directive is worded as follows:

‘Within three months of notification of a [NAP] by a Member State under paragraph 1, the Commission may reject that [NAP],
or any aspect thereof, on the basis that it is incompatible with the criteria listed in Annex III or with Article 10. The
Member State shall only take a decision under Article 11(1) or (2) if proposed amendments are accepted by the Commission.
Reasons shall be given for any rejection decision by the Commission.’

14      As regards the allocation and the issue of allowances, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 11 of the Directive provide:

‘2.      For the five-year period beginning 1 January 2008, and for each subsequent five-year period, each Member State shall decide
upon the total quantity of allowances it will allocate for that period and initiate the process for the allocation of those
allowances to the operator of each installation. This decision shall be taken at least 12 months before the beginning of the
relevant period and be based on the Member State’s [NAP] developed pursuant to Article 9 and in accordance with Article 10,
taking due account of comments from the public.

3.      Decisions taken pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 shall be in accordance with the requirements of the [EC] Treaty, in particular
Articles 87 and 88 thereof. When deciding upon allocation, Member States shall take into account the need to provide access
to allowances for new entrants.’

15      Annex III to the Directive sets out 11 criteria for NAPs.

16      The criteria set out in points 1 to 3, 5 and 10 of that annex read as follows:

‘1. The total quantity of allowances to be allocated for the relevant period shall be consistent with the Member State’s obligation
to limit its emissions pursuant to Decision 2002/358/EC and the Kyoto Protocol, taking into account, on the one hand, the
proportion of overall emissions that these allowances represent in comparison with emissions from sources not covered by this
Directive and, on the other hand, national energy policies, and should be consistent with the national climate change programme.
The total quantity of allowances to be allocated shall not be more than is likely to be needed for the strict application
of the criteria of this Annex. Prior to 2008, the quantity shall be consistent with a path towards achieving or overachieving
each Member State’s target under Decision 2002/358/EC and the Kyoto Protocol.

2. The total quantity of allowances to be allocated shall be consistent with assessments of actual and projected progress
towards fulfilling the Member States’ contributions to the Community’s commitments made pursuant to [Council] Decision 93/389/EEC
[of 24 June 1993 for a monitoring mechanism of Community C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 1993 L 167, p. 31)].

3. Quantities of allowances to be allocated shall be consistent with the potential, including the technological potential,
of activities covered by this scheme to reduce emissions. Member States may base their distribution of allowances on average
emissions of greenhouse gases by product in each activity and achievable progress in each activity.

...

5.      The [NAP] shall not discriminate between companies or sectors in such a way as to unduly favour certain undertakings or activities
in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty, in particular Articles 87 and 88 thereof.

...

10.      The [NAP] shall contain a list of the installations covered by this Directive with the quantities of allowances intended to
be allocated to each.’

17      According to Article 13(1) of the Directive, allowances are only valid for emissions during the period for which they are
issued.

**Background to the proceedings**

18      It is clear from the order under appeal that, according to its own statements, the appellant is the only integrated steel
producer in Slovakia and is the ‘beneficiary in the steel industry’ within the meaning of point 2(a) of Chapter 4 of Annex
XIV to the Act of Accession.

19      With regard to the implementation of the transitional measures in the Act of Accession, the appellant, the Slovak Republic
and the Commission discussed, on several occasions, the production caps set by the Act.

20      As regards the application of the Directive, it appears that, following public consultation during which the appellant asked
the Slovak Government for the allocation of a given quantity of allowances, the Slovak Government, on 18 August 2006, notified
to the Commission its NAP for the second allocation period. According to the NAP, the Slovak Republic intended to allocate
an average of 41.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year in total, of which 11.7321676 million tonnes were to be allocated to the appellant. In explaining the
quantity earmarked for the appellant, the Slovak Government stated that future emissions would be higher than those in 2005.

21      By the contested decision, adopted on the basis of Article 9(3) of the Directive and addressed to the Slovak Republic, the
Commission took the view, in Article 1 thereof, that the NAP notified by the Slovak Republic was incompatible with the criteria
set out in points 1 to 3, 5 and 6 of Annex III to the Directive.

22      With respect to the criteria laid down in the said points 1 to 3, the Commission took the view, in particular, that, of the
total of emission allowances envisaged by the Slovak Republic, a quantity of 10.387739 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was not consistent with the potential, including the technological potential, to reduce emissions. As regards
the criterion set out in point 5, the Commission took the view that the proposed allocation exceeded the level corresponding
to production limitations ensuing from Annex XIV to the Act of Accession.

23      In that respect, paragraphs 17 and 19 of the grounds of the contested decision read as follows:

‘17. ... pursuant to criterion [No] 5 of Annex III to [Directive 2003/87], the Commission has examined the correspondence of
proposed allocation with production limitations ensuing from Annex XIV to the Act of Accession. These production limitations
constitute one of the conditions stipulated in Chapter 4 point 2 of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession under which the Slovak
Republic is allowed to apply until the end of the fiscal year 2009 the corporate tax exemption up to the maximum specified
aid amount to one beneficiary in the steel industry. The Commission finds that the proposed allocation does not consistently
and systematically correspond to those limitations.

...

19. The Commission therefore considers that the allocation proposed by the Slovak authorities for years 2008 and 2009 provides
an undue advantage to one operator since it will partially correspond to production that it will not be allowed to produce.
Allocating allowances beyond legal, economic or technical limitations is paramount to allocating beyond the level of expected
needs. The Commission considers that where the proposed allocation exceeds the level corresponding to the production limitations,
any operator concerned is unduly favoured, which contravenes [the] criterion [referred to in point] 5 of Annex III to [Directive
2003/87]. Moreover, the Commission at this stage cannot exclude that any State aid involved in allocation exceeding this level
may be found incompatible with the common market should it be assessed in accordance with Articles 87 [EC] and 88 [EC].’

24      The Commission thus took the view that the Slovak authorities had to reduce the total quantity of allowances envisaged for
the second allocation period by 10.387739 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, so that it would correspond to the production limitations under Annex XIV to the Act of Accession.

25      Consequently, in Article 2 of the contested decision, the Commission stated that it would not raise objections to the Slovak
NAP, provided the proposed allocation was amended in such a way that it corresponded to those production limitations and that
those amendments to the NAP were made in a non-discriminatory manner.

26      In addition, the Commission stated, in Article 3(2) of the contested decision, that the NAP could be amended without prior
acceptance by it if those amendments consisted in modifications of the allocation of allowances to individual installations
listed in the NAP within the total quantity to be allocated to installations listed therein resulting from improvements to
data quality or to reduce the share of the allocation of allowances free of charge within the limits set in Article 10 of
the Directive.

27      Article 3(3) of that decision also stated that any other amendments, apart from those made to comply with Article 2 of the
said decision, required prior notification and prior acceptance by the Commission.

**The order under appeal**

28      By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 7 February 2007, the appellant brought an action seeking
annulment of the contested decision.

29      By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 19 March 2007, the Commission raised an objection
of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The appellant lodged
its observations on that objection on 11 April 2007.

30      By the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the appellant as inadmissible. The
Court of First Instance held that the contested decision was not of direct concern to the appellant for the purposes of Article
230 EC.

31      In support of that finding, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 53 of the order under appeal, that the contested
decision was addressed to the Slovak Republic and that, therefore, the question had to be examined whether it was of direct
concern to the appellant.

32      In this respect, the Court of First Instance recalled the conditions under which an act not addressed to a natural or legal
person may be considered to be of direct concern to him for the purposes of Article 230 EC.

33      In paragraph 55 of the order under appeal, basing itself on the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance
said that, first, the measure at issue must directly affect the legal situation of the person concerned, and, second, that
measure must leave no discretion to its addressees who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation
being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules (Case
C‐386/96 P *Dreyfus* v *Commission* [1998] ECR I‐2309, paragraph 43).

34      Moreover, the Court of First Instance stated that that second condition is also fulfilled where the possibility for addressees
not to give effect to the Community measure is purely theoretical and their intention to act in conformity with it is not
in doubt (see Case 11/82 *Piraiki-Patraiki**and Others* v *Commission* [1985] ECR 207, paragraphs 7 to 10, and *Dreyfus* v *Commission*, paragraph 44).

35      In paragraphs 56 to 59 of the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance examined the roles and powers allocated to the
Commission and the Member States respectively under the Directive, particularly by Articles 9 to 11. The Court of First Instance
concluded, in paragraph 60 of the order, that it followed both from the wording of the Directive and from the objectives of
the system which it establishes that it is the decision of the national authorities taken pursuant to Article 11(1) or (2)
of the Directive allocating allowances to the operators of the installations concerned which affected the operators’ legal
situation.

36      Moreover, the Court of First Instance considered, in paragraph 61 of the order under appeal, that none of the arguments put
forward by the appellant affected that conclusion.

37      In that respect, the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraph 73 of the order under appeal, that the contested decision
did not have the effect of placing the appellant in a situation similar to that of a recipient of State aid declared to be
incompatible with the common market pursuant to a formal decision for the purposes of Article 88 EC. Therefore, according
to the Court of First Instance, the appellant could not successfully rely on the case-law which has held that actions for
annulment brought by such recipients are admissible.

38      The Court of First Instance then concluded, in paragraph 74 of the order under appeal, that the particularities of the case
relating to the production caps relied on by the appellant were not such as to affect the discretion which the Slovak Government
had in the allocation of specific allowances to individual installations provided that the limits on the total quantity of
allowances to be allocated were respected.

39      The Court of First Instance also held, in paragraph 76 of the order, that, in any event, in the system provided for by the
Directive, it was for the Member States to distribute the allowances amongst the installations in question in the exercise
of their discretion. Hence, the definitive and direct determination of the rights and obligations of the operators of those
installations resulted only from the decision by the Member State adopted pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Directive.

40      Concluding, in paragraph 79 of the order under appeal, that the contested decision was not of direct concern to the appellant,
since the allocation of the quantity of individual allowances within the limits of the total quantity of allowances was for
the Slovak Government to decide freely on its own, the Court of First Instance proceeded to declare the action inadmissible.

**Forms of order sought**

41      By its appeal, the appellant asks the Court of Justice to set aside the order under appeal, to refer the matter back to the
Court of First Instance and to order the Commission to pay the costs.

42      The Commission, for its part, contends that the appeal should be dismissed as unfounded and that the appellant should be ordered
to pay the costs.

43      In accordance with Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded, the
Court may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, by reasoned order
dismiss the appeal.

**The appeal**

44      In support of its appeal, the appellant submits, in essence, a single ground for the annulment of the order under appeal alleging
an error of law in the application of the condition of direct concern for the purposes of Article 230 EC.

45      This ground can essentially be broken up into three component parts concerning, first, the direct effect of the contested
decision in so far as it rejected the NAP submitted by the Slovak Republic and required and inevitably meant a reduction of
the allocations to the appellant, second, erroneous assessment of the Member States’ margin of discretion with respect to
the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances and, third, the refusal to recognise the similarities between the contested
decision and decisions adopted in State aid or merger control proceedings.

*Arguments of the parties*

46      First, the appellant submits that the contested decision rejected the NAP submitted by the Slovak Government, in particular
with regard to the quantities of allowances that the Slovak Government intended to allocate to the appellant. That decision
led directly to a reduction in the total number of allowances that that Member State planned to allocate and, in particular,
an inevitable reduction in the quantities of allowances that it had intended to grant to the appellant, given that the appellant
contributed around one third of the emissions envisaged in the NAP at issue.

47      Second, the Slovak Government used its discretion in the context of defining the volume of allowances that it intended to
allocate, as laid down in its NAP. The contested decision prevented the Slovak Government from implementing that NAP. In this
respect, there can be no doubt that, without that decision, the Slovak Government would have allocated those allowances to
the appellant and, moreover, it would even have been legally bound to do so. Therefore, the contested decision did not leave
any margin of discretion or application to the Member State to which it was addressed, so that, as regards the appellant,
the condition of direct concern should be considered to be fulfilled.

48      In addition, the Directive requires the Member States to define in their NAPs the quantities of allowances that they intend
to allocate as well as the criteria that they will use in making those allocations. Therefore, at the time when individual
allocation decisions are adopted, the Member States are required to observe the criteria laid down beforehand in their NAPs
and cannot subsequently adjust the quantities that have been allocated, in contrast to what was asserted by the Court of First
Instance, especially in paragraph 75 of the order under appeal, in disregard of its own case-law, resulting, in particular,
from paragraphs 55 and 56 of Case T-178/05 *United Kingdom* v *Commission* [2005] ECR II-4807.

49      Third, the appellant claims that, with regard to the contested decision, it is in a situation similar to that of a beneficiary
of State aid vis-à-vis a decision finding such aid to be incompatible. The situation of the appellant is also similar to that
of an undertaking subject to a merger control decision.

50      The appellant submits, in particular, that the contested decision contains a finding having direct effect in so far as the
Commission adopted a definitive position according to which the supposed State aid in the form of emission allowances could
not be disbursed and that, consequently, the NAP had to be amended to that effect by the Slovak authorities. This constitutes
a means whereby the Commission can avoid the delays of the procedure provided for under Article 88 EC.

51      The Commission, referring to the system that was put in place by the Directive, points out that allowances are attributed
at national level and that it is the decisions adopted at that level that legally affect those allocated emission allowances.
In this respect, however, according to Article 11(2) of the Directive, individuals, like the appellant, have the right to
be consulted before the national authorities take their final allocation decision.

52      It is true that the decisions adopted in that context must comply with the criteria that the Member States submitted to the
Commission in their NAPs and which the Commission accepted. However, the Member States retain a margin of discretion when
it comes to the allocation of emission allowances at an individual level and the possibility of amending the total volume
or individual quantities.

53      On the one hand, they may notify amendments to their NAPs. Indeed, the Slovak Government made use of that option and the Commission
approved, in a decision of 7 December 2007, the amendments made, including an annual increase in the total quantity of emission
allowances by an amount of 1.717100 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. On the other hand, the Member States continue to be able to allocate total quantities of allowances that are
lower than the threshold laid down in the contested decision.

54      In any event, the Commission contends that it is not in a position to assess, on a case-by-case basis, the allocations envisaged
for installations referred to in the NAP notified by the Member State and that, consequently, the contested decision is not
capable of having direct effect as regards the appellant. In this respect, the list of installations referred to by the criterion
laid down in point 10 of Annex III to the Directive, which must appear in the NAP notified by a Member State, is merely illustrative,
allowing the Commission to assess whether the said NAP correctly reflects the requirements of the Directive.

55      Moreover, in the view of the Commission, even after the reduction indicated in the contested decision, the total quantity
of emission allowances that could be allocated allowed the addressee Member State, if it had wished to do so, to increase
the quantity of allowances that it intended to allocate to the appellant, a large emitter of greenhouse gases, by reducing
the allocations to the small emitters. In this respect, Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the contested decision require only an overall
reduction in emissions.

56      Finally, the Commission denies that there is similarity between the procedure leading to the approval of a NAP under the Directive
and State aid or merger control proceedings. The Commission contends, in particular, that the appellant was not entitled to
any specific allocation, either at the time of notification of the NAP by the Slovak Government or after the adoption of the
contested decision by the Commission. In principle, its legal position was unchanged, even after adoption of that decision.

57      As regards the appellant’s claim that the contested decision contains a finding of incompatibility concerning State aid, the
Commission states that the Court of First Instance correctly held that a Commission decision adopted on the basis of the Directive,
which in turn was adopted on the basis of Article 175 EC, cannot replace a decision that the Commission could adopt under
the specific Treaty rules on State aid.

58      In this respect, the Commission states that the procedure applicable to State aid was not followed in the present case and
that the appellant appears to confuse the criterion laid down in point 5 of Annex III to the Directive concerning non-discrimination
and the provisions of the Treaty on State aid. The Commission rejected the NAP specifically with regard inter alia to that
criterion, and not with regard to the Treaty provisions. Moreover, it even took care to make it clear that the contested decision
had no effect on any subsequent proceedings under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.

*Findings of the Court*

59      In accordance with settled case-law, the condition that the decision forming the subject-matter of the proceedings must be
of direct concern to a natural or legal person, as laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires the contested
Community measure to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees, who
are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules
without the application of other intermediate rules (Case C‐486/01 P *Front national* v *Parliament* [2004] ECR I‐6289, paragraph 34, and Case C‐15/06 P *Regione Siciliana* v *Commission* [2007] ECR I‐2591, paragraph 31).

60      The same applies where the possibility for addressees not to give effect to the Community measure is purely theoretical and
their intention to act in conformity with it is not in doubt (*Dreyfus* v *Commission*, paragraph 44, and the case-law cited there).

61      Having examined the case-law cited above, the Court of First Instance considered, in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the order under
appeal, that the decision of the national authorities, taken pursuant to Article 11(1) or (2) of the Directive and allocating
allowances to the operators of the installations concerned, constituted the definitive decision affecting the latter’s legal
situation.

62      In this respect, it must be recalled that, in accordance with Article 11(2) and (3) of that directive, it is for each Member
State, and not the Commission, to decide upon the total quantity of allowances it will allocate for the period in question,
to initiate the process of allocation of those allowances and to rule on allocation of those allowances. Such a decision is
based on its NAP developed pursuant to Article 9 and in accordance with Article 10 of that directive (order in Case C-503/07
P *Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland* v *Commission* [2008] ECR I‐0000, paragraph 75).

63      Moreover, it is not possible to derive from the objectives of the Directive, read in the light of recital 5 in its preamble,
from the criterion laid down in point 5 of Annex III thereto, or from any other provision of that directive, a guarantee for
the operators of installations that a particular allocation method will be applied to them, or even a right to obtain a particular
quantity of greenhouse gas emission allowances (order in *Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland* v *Commission*, paragraph 76).

64      As regards the argument by which the appellant attempts to show that the Member State was bound by the quantities of allowances
that it intended to allocate to the appellant, which appeared as such in the Member State’s notified NAP, it is clear that
the quantities mentioned in the NAP that a Member State plans to allocate to certain installations are for guidance only.

65      In the context of the notification procedure for each Member State’s NAP, as defined in Article 9(3) of the Directive, approval
by the Commission essentially relates to the overall volumes of greenhouse gas emissions for each Member State and the method
or methods of allocation of emission allowances that the Member State intends to apply. This is in order to check that those
allowances comply with Article 10 of the Directive and are compatible with the criteria set out in Annex III thereto. Therefore,
it is only when the Member State adopts a decision for the purposes of Article 11 of the Directive, and not when the Commission
adopts a decision within the meaning of Article 9(3) of that directive, that an operator is legally granted a specific quantity
of emission allowances.

66      In that regard, the fact that the NAP notified by the Member State to the Commission must contain a list of the installations
covered by the emission trading scheme and state the allowances which that State intends to grant to those installations,
does not make it possible to conclude that, by the contested decision, the Commission ruled on the individual applications
concerning the volume of given allowances (see, to that effect, the order in *Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland* v *Commission*, paragraph 73).

67      Therefore, contrary to what the appellant claims, the Slovak Republic, to which the contested decision was addressed, could
have decided to make individual allocations of allowances at levels different from those set out in its NAP since, as the
Commission expressly mentioned in the contested decision, the Member State to which the decision was addressed only had to
observe the overall emission ceilings and the allocation methods contained in its NAP as approved by the Commission.

68      It follows that, within the framework of the system put in place by the Directive, the Member States have a certain amount
of discretion in making individual allocations of emission allowances pursuant to Article 11 of the Directive. From that point
of view, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the present order, the contested decision was not
such as to directly affect the legal situation of the appellant.

69      In addition, as regards the question of production limitations arising from the provisions of the Act of Accession, it must
be noted that the contested decision rejected the NAP at issue on the ground that, in view in particular of those limitations,
the Slovak Republic had envisaged in its NAP an overall emission volume that exceeded its potential, including its technological
potential, in disregard of the criteria laid down in points 1 to 3 of Annex III to the Directive. The Commission also considered
that, in view of those limitations, on which the authorisation to give State aid to the operator of a steel plant, in this
case the appellant, was conditional, the Slovak Republic’s NAP, in disregard of the criterion in point 5 of that annex, envisaged
an excess allocation that would have unduly favoured that operator.

70      In this respect, it is indeed clear from Article 2(2) of the contested decision that the Commission made its approval of the
Slovak Republic’s NAP conditional on the proposed allocation being modified in such a way that it corresponds to production
limitations ensuing from Annex XIV to the Act of Accession. Moreover, as is clear from paragraphs 68 and 69 of this order,
that Member State could in any event still grant the appellant a quantity of allowances below those limitations, so that,
for the purposes of the case-law set out in paragraphs 60 and 61 of this order, it retained a margin of discretion that precludes
the contested decision being regarded as directly affecting the appellant.

71      Finally, as regards the appellant’s argument seeking to establish an analogy between the procedure under the Directive and
State aid and merger control proceedings, it is clear that such decisions are subject to their own procedural rules.

72      Therefore, the Court of First Instance rightly considered that it could not recognise the appellant as having *locus standi* in an action for annulment against the contested decision by applying, by way of analogy, the case-law concerning the admissibility
of natural or legal persons in the context of disputes concerning State aid or merger control.

73      Moreover, it cannot be maintained that, by the contested decision, the Commission took a decision on the existence of State
aid or that it ordered the Member State not to disburse such an aid consisting in an allocation of greenhouse gas emission
allowances. Such a claim is impeded by the express proviso formulated by the Commission in that decision as to the possibility
of subsequent assessment within the framework of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.

74      Consequently, the Court of First Instance rightly found that the contested decision was not of direct concern to the appellant
within the meaning of Article 230 EC, a finding which in itself justifies the dismissal of the appeal brought by the appellant,
a legal person who was not the addressee of the contested decision.

75      In view of all the foregoing considerations, the appeal must be dismissed as being clearly unfounded.

**Costs**

76      Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which is applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 118 of those
rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
As the Commission has applied for costs against the appellant, which has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the
costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby orders:

1.      **The appeal is dismissed.**

2.      **US Steel Košice s.r.o. shall pay the costs.**

[Signatures]

---

[\*](#Footref*) Language of the case: English.