Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:28
Date: 2001-01-31
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;State aids;Beef and veal;Competition
Concepts: Bringing matters before the Commission;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. State aid — Publication by the Commission of the notice of authorisation of aid — 
Purpose — Notice sufficiently precise — Consequences — Action brought by a third 
party who did not challenge the decision authorising the aid — Inadmissible in so fai­
as the action seeks to challenge the aid on the basis of Article 92 (now, after 
amendment, Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the Treaty (now Article 88 EC) 
(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93(3) (now 
Art. 88(3) EC)) 
II - 303 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-197/97 AND T-198/97 
2. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — Deci­
sion to take no further action — Subject to review by the Court 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3(2)) 
3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Aspects of the aid which are 
incompatible with Treaty provisions other than those relating to State aid — Aspects 
indissolubly linked to the purpose of the aid — Assessment by means of the procedure 
for examining aid — Review by the Court 
(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93 (now Art. 88 
EC)) 
1. Since aid concerns an indeterminate 
group of persons, the sole purpose of 
the requirement that aid authorisation 
under Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now 
Article 88(3) EC) be notified is to 
oblige the Commission to ensure that 
all persons who may be concerned are 
alerted. Publication of an authorisation 
notice in the Official Journal is an 
adequate means of informing all those 
concerned that aid has been authorised 
by the Commission on the basis of that 
article. 
If the details given in the notice are 
sufficiently precise to enable a third 
party to realise that it is definitely 
concerned by the aid authorised, it may 
not subsequently challenge the lawful­
ness of the measure on the basis of 
Article 92 (now, after amendment, 
Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the 
Treaty if it did not challenge the 
decision authorising the aid within the 
time-limits laid down by Article 173 of 
the Treaty (now Article 230 EC). 
(see paras 48 to 50) 
2. Where the Commission has decided to 
proceed no further with a complaint 
regarding competition and not to carry 
out an investigation, the purpose of the 
review of legality to be made by the 
Court of First Instance is to ensure that 
the contested decision is not based on 
materially incorrect facts or vitiated by 
an error of law, a manifest error of 
appraisal or misuse of powers. 
(see para. 74) 
3. It is clear from the general scheme of 
the Treaty that the procedure provided 
for in Article 92 (now, after amend­
ment, Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of 
the Treaty (now Article 88 EC) must 
never produce a result which is con­
trary to the specific provisions of the 
Treaty. The Commission's obligation to 
ensure that Articles 92 and 93 of the 
Treaty are applied consistently with 
other provisions of the Treaty is all the 
more necessary where those other pro­
visions pursue the same aim of ensuring 
II - 304 
WEYL BEEF PRODUCTS AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
undistorted competition in the com­
mon market. 
However, aspects of aid which contra­
vene provisions of the Treaty other 
than Articles 92 and 93 may be so 
indissolubly linked to the object of the 
aid that it is impossible to evaluate 
them separately. 
Where this is so, the effects of those 
aspects on the compatibility or incom­
patibility of the aid as a whole must be 
assessed by means of the procedure 
under Article 93 of the Treaty. The 
position is different, however, if it is 
possible when aid is being analysed to 
separate those conditions or factors 
which, even though they form part of 
the aid, may be regarded as not being 
necessary for the attainment of its 
object or for its proper functioning. 
In the case of disputed measures form­
ing part of aid authorised by the 
Commission, the Court must first 
determine whether the measures are 
aspects or elements of the aid author­
ised and, if so, whether they entail 
restrictive effects which go beyond 
what is necessary for the aid to attain 
the objectives permissible under the 
Treaty. 
(see paras 75 to 78) 
II - 305