Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:201
Date: 1998-09-15
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Commission decision following a preliminary review or proceeding to the formal investigation procedure;Limitation periods;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Ireland

Summary of the J u d g m e n t 
1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on 
which the decision came to the applicant's knowledge — Subsidiary criterion — Date of pub­
lication 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fifth para.) 
2. State aid — Commission decision making authorisation of payment of aid to an undertaking, 
to be awarded in tranches, subject to conditions — Failure to comply with the conditions — 
Investigation by the Commission — Preliminary stage and adversarial stage — Commission's 
obligation to initiate inter partes procedure — Minor deviations from the initial conditions — 
Commission's power to manage and monitor aid 
(EC Treaty, Arts 92(3)(c) and 93(2)) 
II - 3327 
SUMMARY — CASE T-140/95 
3. State aid — Prohibition — Derogations — Commission's discretion — Review by the Court 
— Limits 
(EC Treaty, Arts 92(3)(c), 93(2) and 173) 
1. It is clear from the wording of the fifth 
paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, 
concerning the time-limit for bringing 
actions for annulment, that the criterion 
of the day on which a measure came to 
the knowledge of an applicant, as the 
starting point of the period prescribed, is 
subsidiary to the criteria of publication or 
notification of the measures. 
Where it is reasonable for the applicant to 
anticipate that the decision it intends to 
challenged will be published — because it 
allows a derogation from an earlier deci­
sion which was itself published — and it 
has received assurances to that effect from 
the author of the decision, the time-limit 
for instituting proceedings starts to run 
on the date of publication of the decision. 
2. Failure to comply with a condition 
imposed in a decision approving aid to be 
paid in successive tranches under Article 
92(3)(c) of the Treaty raises a presump­
tion that subsequent tranches of the aid 
are incompatible with the common mar­
ket. It follows that the subsequent 
tranches cannot be released without a 
new Commission decision granting a for­
mal derogation from the condition which 
was not complied with. 
In those circumstances, the Commission 
must consider whether such a derogation 
can be granted, whilst ensuring that the 
subsequent tranches of the aid are still 
compatible with the common market 
under the conditions laid down in Article 
92(3)(c) of the Treaty. If this leads the 
Commission to conclude that the subse­
quent tranches of the aid are no longer 
compatible with the common market, or 
if it does not enable it to overcome all the 
difficulties involved in determining 
whether the subsequent tranches of the 
aid are compatible with the common mar­
ket, the Commission is under a duty to 
carry out all the requisite consultations 
and, for that purpose, to re-open the pro­
cedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty. 
The same is true if, when carrying out its 
examination with regard to that deroga­
tion, the Commission intends to depart 
from the scope of its initial decision. 
However, if the failure to comply with 
one of the conditions to which approval 
of the aid was subject is of relatively 
minor importance, so that the Commis­
sion has no doubt that the aid at issue is 
still compatible with the common market, 
it may adopt the necessary decision dero­
gating from that condition, without 
re-opening the procedure under Article 
93(2). 
II - 3328 
RYANAIR ν COMMISSION 
In the context of aid already approved in 
principle, paid in successive tranches over 
a relatively long period in association 
with a restructuring plan, the results of 
which are achieved only after a number 
of years, the Commission enjoys a power 
to manage and monitor the implementa­
tion of such aid in order, in particular, to 
enable it to deal with developments 
which could not have been foreseen when 
the initial decision was adopted. It is 
therefore possible that, in the light of a 
change in external circumstances which 
occurs after the initial decision, the Com­
mission may vary the conditions govern­
ing the implementation or monitoring of 
the restructuring plan, without 
re-opening the procedure under Article 
93(2) of the Treaty, provided none the less 
that such variations do not give rise to 
doubts as to the compatibility of the aid 
at issue with the common market. 
3. As regards the application of Articles 
92(3)(c) and 93(2) of the Treaty, the Com­
mission enjoys a wide discretion, the 
exercise of which involves assessments of 
an economic and social nature which 
must be made in a Community context. 
Therefore, when reviewing the legality of 
a decision in accordance with Article 173 
of the Treaty, the Community courts 
must confine themselves to determining 
whether the Commission has exceeded 
the limits of its discretion by distorting 
the facts, or has committed a manifest 
error of assessment, a misuse of powers 
or abuse or process. 
II - 3329