Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:236
Date: 2008-04-22
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951);Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Acts of the institutions;Investments and financial aid;Objectives and foundations of the Community
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. ECSC – Aid – Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS – Different scope (Arts 4(c) CS and 67 CS) 2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Arts 4(c) CS and 15 CS) 3. ECSC – Scope of the Treaty – State aid rules – Provisions of the EC Treaty not applicable (Art. 305(1) EC) 4. ECSC – Aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Legal certainty (Art. 4(c) CS) 1. While Article 4(c) CS prohibits the granting of State aid to steel and coal undertakings, without drawing a distinction between individual aid or aid disbursed under a State aid scheme, Article 67 CS refers expressly to State aid only in respect of protective measures that the Commission may authorise, pursuant to the first indent of paragraph 2 of that article, in favour of coal or steel undertakings where they suffer competitive disadvantages because of general economic policy measures. In addition, Articles 4 CS and 67 CS concern two distinct areas, the first abolishing and prohibiting certain actions by Member States in the field which the ECSC Treaty places under Community jurisdiction, the second intended to prevent the distortion of competition which exercise of the residual powers of the Member States inevitably entails. Therefore, Article 67 CS covers general measures which Member States may adopt in the context of their economic and social policy and measures taken by Member States which apply to industries other than coal and steel but which are capable of having significant repercussions on the conditions of competition in those industries. Moreover, action taken under Article 67 CS cannot be what, in any other form whatsoever, Article 4 CS declares to be incompatible with the common market for coal and steel and abolished and prohibited. It is inconceivable that the authors of the ECSC Treaty decided in Article 4(c) CS that subsidies and aids granted by Member States in any form whatsoever should be abolished and prohibited and then declared in Article 67 CS that, without even having been authorised by the Commission, that aid could be allowed subject to the measures recommended by the Commission to mitigate or remedy its effects. The first indent of Article 67(2) CS, which, by derogation from Article 4 CS, allows the granting of State aid in respect of protective measures to undertakings referred to in Article 80 CS, does not distinguish between aid specific to the coal and steel industry and aid which applies to it as the result of a general measure. Finally, State aid granted to an undertaking falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty has identical anti-competitive effects, regardless of whether it constitutes individual aid or aid granted under a State aid scheme that is not specific to the coal and steel sector. Consequently, Article 4(c) CS applies to State aid paid to coal and steel undertakings under a State aid scheme that is not specific to the coal and steel sector. Such an interpretation does not undermine the effectiveness of Article 67 CS, given that general policy measures are liable to have appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or steel industry within the meaning of Article 67(1) CS, without constituting State aid. (see paras 31-37) 2. The statement of reasons required by Article 15 CS must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to carry out its review. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 15 CS must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. (see para. 56) 3. It follows from Article 305(1) EC that the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty are independent treaties and that, consequently, the EC Treaty and the secondary legislation enacted on the basis of it cannot produce effects in areas that fall within the scope of the ECSC Treaty. The provisions of the EC Treaty only apply in the alternative, in situations in which there is no specific rule under the ECSC Treaty. Likewise, given that Article 1 of the Third Steel Aid Code prohibited both aid that was and aid that was not specific to the steel sector, the Commission could not implicitly withdraw a decision declaring an aid scheme that was not specific to the coal and steel sector compatible with the common market on the basis of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC. (see paras 87-89) 4. Even in a situation in which the Community legislature has not laid down any period of limitation, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers. Even though, for the purposes of the ECSC Treaty, the rules provided for in Articles 10(1) and 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] do not apply as such, they were based, in the domain of State aid, on the fundamental requirement of legal certainty. However, the notification of State aid is a central element of Community rules for supervising that aid and undertakings to which such aid has been granted may not entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful if it has not been granted in compliance with that procedure. Moreover, the particularly strict nature of the State aid regime under the ECSC Treaty sets it apart from the State aid regime under the EC Treaty. Consequently, where aid was granted under the ECSC Treaty without having been notified, a delay by the Commission in exercising its supervisory powers and ordering recovery of the aid does not render that recovery decision unlawful, except in exceptional cases which show that the Commission manifestly failed to act and clearly breached its duty of diligence. (see paras 100-107)