Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:916
Date: 2018-12-12
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 12 December 2018 1. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Administrative procedure — Commission obligation to give the parties concerned, and therefore the infra-State bodies, notice to submit their comments — Exclusion of those parties from rights of defence (Art. 108(2) TFEU) 2. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Administrative procedure — Commission obligation to give the parties concerned, and therefore the infra-State bodies, notice to submit their comments — Infringement — Consequences (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) 3. Action for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Requirement not met (Art. 263 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 44, 45) 2. Under Article 108(2) TFEU, the Commission is required to give notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments during the formal investigation phase. The sole aim of that communication is to obtain from persons concerned all information required for the guidance of the Commission with regard to its future action. The Commission must, without being required to present a complete analysis of the aid in question, define sufficiently the framework of its investigation so as not to render meaningless the right of interested parties to submit their comments. For that purpose, it is sufficient for the parties concerned to be aware of the reasoning that has led the Commission to conclude provisionally that the measure at issue might constitute new aid incompatible with the internal market. The obligation on the Commission to place the interested parties in a position, at the stage of the initiating decision, to submit their comments, is an essential procedural requirement, the infringement of which has consequences, such as the annulment of the defective act, irrespective of whether that infringement caused harm to the person pleading it or whether the administrative procedure might have led to a different result. (see paras 46, 47, 70) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 77-90)