Order — ECLI:EU:C:1998:130
Date: 1998-03-25
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Appeals;Public undertakings;Aid to undertakings subject to Article 86 EC
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the O r d e r 
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous appraisal of the facts — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. il) 
2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the 
Court of First Instance — Inadmissible — Appeal dismissed 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and il; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, 
Art. 112(1)(c)) 
3. State aid — Prohibition — Derogations — Aid granted to an undertaking entrusted with the 
operation of a service of general economic interest — Conditions — Commission's discretion 
(EC Treaty, Arts 90(2) and 92) 
I - 1303 
SUMMARY — CASE C-174/97 P 
1. According to Article 168a of the Treaty 
and the first paragraph of Article 51 of 
the Statute of the Court of Justice, an 
appeal may rely only on grounds relating 
to the infringement of rules of law, to the 
exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. 
2. Where an appeal merely repeats or repro­
duces verbatim the pleas in law and argu­
ments previously submitted to the Court 
of First Instance, including those based 
on facts expressly rejected by that Court, 
it fails to satisfy the requirements under 
Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of 
Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules 
of Procedure and is therefore clearly 
inadmissible. In reality, such an appeal 
amounts to no more than a request for 
re-examination of the application submit­
ted to the Court of First Instance, which, 
under Article 49 of the Statute, falls out­
side the jurisdiction of the Court of Jus­
tice. 
3. The grant of State aid may, under Article 
90(2) of the Treaty, escape the prohibition 
laid down in Article 92 thereof provided 
that the sole purpose of the aid in ques­
tion is to offset the additional costs 
incurred in performing the particular task 
assigned to an undertaking entrusted with 
the operation of a service of general econ­
omic interest and that the grant of the aid 
is necessary in order for that undertaking 
to be able to perform its public service 
obligations under conditions of economic 
equilibrium. 
In the case of a tax advantage granted to 
an undertaking entrusted with public ser­
vice tasks, but which also has activities in 
competitive sectors, the requirements laid 
down by Article 90(2) of the Treaty can­
not have been disregarded where it has 
been concluded that the possibility of a 
cross-subsidy taking place is excluded to 
the extent to which the aid in question 
remains lower than the additional costs 
generated by the particular task referred 
to in that provision, that is to say, where 
the condition has been laid down that the 
tax advantage should not exceed the addi­
tional costs engendered by the public ser­
vice. 
I - 1304