Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:29
Date: 2001-01-31
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Applications by undertakings or their associations;Investments and financial aid;Agreements and concentrations. Interference with conditions of competition;Pleas in law
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Action brought by an undertaking against an individual 
ECSC decision not addressed to it — Decision authorising the grant of benefits to 
competitors 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33, second para.) 
2. Actions for annulment — Action brought by an undertaking under the ECSC 
Treaty — Conditions of admissibility — Reference to case-law under the EC 
Treaty — Role of natural and legal persons in the pre-litigation procedure 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33, second para.) 
II - 337 
SUMMARY — CASE T-1J6/98 
3. Actions for annulment — Action brought under the first paragraph of Article 33 
CS — Pleas in law •—· Manifest failure by the Commission to observe the provisions 
of the Treaty or any rule of law relating to its application •—• Meaning — Limits on 
the Court's power of appraisal — Observed of its own motion 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33, first para.) 
4. ECSC Treaty •—· Concentrations — Prior authorisation — Obligation on the Com­
mission to avoid inconsistencies that might arise in the implementation of the various 
provisions of Community law — Obligation to appraise aid inherent in the merger in 
the course of that merger 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 66(2)) 
1. The second paragraph of Article 33 of 
the ECSC Treaty, which is worded 
differently from the second paragraph 
of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, 
after amendment, the second para­
graph of Article 230 EC), authorises 
undertakings to institute proceedings 
for the annulment of decisions or 
recommendations concerning them 
which are individual in character. An 
undertaking is concerned by a Com­
mission decision that allows benefits to 
be granted to one or more undertakings 
which are in competition with it. 
(see para. 59) 
2. Owing to the specific features of the 
ECSC regime, the conditions for the 
admissibility of an action for annul­
ment brought by an undertaking under 
the ECSC Treaty are less strict than 
those for a similar action under the EC 
Treaty. However, the case-law of the 
Court of Justice on the EC Treaty 
according to which, when the Court 
examines the admissibility of an action 
it attaches weight to the part played by 
the natural or legal persons in the 
administrative procedure contains find­
ings which may also be relevant to an 
assessment of the admissibility of an 
action for annulment brought under 
the ECSC Treaty. 
(see paras 76, 79) 
3. As regards the evaluation of the situa­
tion resulting from the economic facts 
or circumstances underlying the con­
tested decision, the Court, in conduct­
ing its review under Article 33 of the 
ECSC Treaty, must confine itself to 
ascertaining whether the Commission 
misused its powers or manifestly failed 
to observe the provisions of the ECSC 
Treaty or any rule of law relating to its 
application. The term 'manifest' in 
Article 33 presupposes that the failure 
to observe legal provisions is so serious 
that it appears to arise from an obvious 
II - 338 
RJB MINING v COMMISSION 
error in the evaluation, having regard 
to the provisions of the ECSC Treaty, 
of the situation in respect of which the 
decision was taken. 
(see para. 87) 
4. The Commission must, as a matter of 
principle, avoid inconsistencies that 
might arise in the implementation of 
the various provisions of Community 
law. That obligation on the Commis­
sion to maintain consistency between 
the provisions of the ECSC Treaty 
relating to State aid and other provi­
sions of the Treaty is all the more 
necessary when the other provisions 
also have undistorted competition in 
the common market as their aim. 
It follows in particular that, when 
adopting a decision on the compatibil­
ity of aid with the common market, the 
Commission must be aware of the risk 
of individual traders undermining com­
petition in the common market. It also 
follows that in adopting a decision on 
the compatibility of a concentration 
between undertakings with the com­
mon market the Commission cannot 
ignore the effect which the grant of 
State aid to those undertakings has on 
the maintenance of effective competi­
tion in the relevant market. The latter 
obligation does not, however, mean 
that the Commission, when adopting a 
decision on the compatibility with the 
common market of a concentration 
between undertakings at the end of a 
specific procedure, must necessarily 
await the outcome of the parallel, but 
independent, procedure in which the 
compatibility of a State aid with the 
common market is examined. 
Moreover, Article 66(2) of the ECSC 
Treaty, which provides that the Com­
mission must assess the 'proposed 
transaction', implies that the Commis­
sion is required to assess the transac­
tion as a whole, not merely one part of 
the transaction. 
(see paras 112-115, 124) 
II - 339