Order — ECLI:EU:C:2018:824
Date: 2018-10-03
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition;Procedural provisions
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal;Application as to costs
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 30 November 2016 1. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) 2. State aid — Definition — Application of the private investor criterion — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 4. State aid — Definition — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context — Whether factors arising subsequent to the adoption of the measure at issue are to be taken into account — Not included (Art. 107(1) TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 79, 80) 2. State aid, as defined in the FEU Treaty, is a legal concept which must be interpreted on the basis of objective factors. For that reason, the EU Courts must in principle, having regard both to the specific features of the case before them and to the technical or complex nature of the Commission’s assessments, carry out a comprehensive review as to whether a measure falls within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. Judicial review is nevertheless limited with regard to whether a measure comes within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, in a case where the appraisals by the Commission are technical or complex in nature. In that regard, where, in order to determine whether a measure comes within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission must apply the prudent private investor criterion in a market economy, as a rule, the application of that test requires the Commission to make a complex economic assessment. Although the EU Court may not substitute its assessment for that of the Commission, it must establish, among other things, whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also ascertain whether that evidence contains all the relevant information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. (see paras 87-89, 91) 3. See the text of the decision. see paras 97-99) 4. Factors arising after the measure at issue is adopted cannot be taken into account for the assessment of the prudent private investor criterion. That assessment must be made in relation to the information that was available at the time when the decision to make the investment was taken. In that regard, the time when the decision to make the investment was taken and the time when the measure was granted will not necessarily be the same, as the decision could be taken well before the measure is granted. (see paras 139-141)