Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:126
Date: 1998-06-16
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Order
Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern
to them — Council regulation concerning aid to certain shipyards under restructuring — Action
brought by a regional authority of a Member State by virtue of the fact that a shipyard named
in the regulation is located in its territory — Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, second and fourth paras; Council Regulation No 1013/97)
Notwithstanding the fact that a particular
shipyard is named in Regulation
No 1013/97, by which the Council empow­
ers the Commission to adopt decisions
addressed to the governments of particular
Member States authorising, subject to certain
II - 2271
SUMMARY — CASE T-238/97
conditions, the payment of new aid to cer­
tain shipyards situated in their respective ter­
ritories, the regional authority on whose ter­
ritory that shipyard is located lacks locus
standi to contest the regulation.
The regional authority cannot rely on the
second paragraph of Article 173 of the
Treaty since it is manifestly clear from the
general scheme of the Treaty that the concept
of Member State, within the meaning of the
provisions relating to remedies, only applies
to the government authorities of the Member
States of the European Communities and
cannot be extended to regional governments
or self-governing communities, regardless of
the extent of their powers.
Although such an authority possesses the
required legal personality to bring an action
under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
the Treaty, any general interest that it may
have, as a third person, in obtaining a result
which will favour the economic prosperity
of a given business and, as a result, the level
of employment in the geographical region
where it carries on its activities, is insufficient
on its own to enable that authority to be
regarded as individually concerned, for the
purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article
173 of the Treaty, by the provisions of the
contested Regulation.
Nor is such an authority directly concerned
by the contested Regulation since the simple
fact of adopting that measure cannot alone
entail the consequences for employment in
the region and the socio-economic repercus­
sions which it alleges. The creation of such
consequences necessarily supposes, first, the
adoption of a decision by the Commission
authorising the payment of aid on condition
that no ship conversions are undertaken in
the shipyard located in the region in ques­
tion and, secondly, the adoption by that
shipyard of autonomous measures connected
with that decision, namely making employ­
ees redundant.
II - 2272