Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:99
Date: 2010-03-18
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a Commission decision concerning State aid (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 1. Actions brought by associations whose function it is to defend the collective interests of their members are admissible in three situations: where they represent the interests of undertakings which themselves have standing to bring proceedings; where they are distinguished individually because of the impact on their own interests as associations, in particular because their position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure sought to be annulled; and where a legal provision expressly confers on them a number of rights of a procedural nature. (see para. 58) 2. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as the applicant has an interest in the annulment of the contested measure. Such an interest presupposes that the annulment of the measure must of itself be capable of having legal consequences and that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party who brought it. The interest must be vested and present and is evaluated as at the date on which the action is brought. It must, however, continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate. An action brought by an undertaking seeking the annulment of a Commission decision laying down a transitional period for terminating a State aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market is inadmissible where the undertaking no longer has a valid authorisation under national law and thus no longer validly benefits from the tax scheme referred to in that decision. The annulment of that decision could not procure any advantage for the undertaking. (see paras 62-63, 74, 79)