Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:643
Date: 2000-11-23
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Investments and financial aid
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany;Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. ECSC — Steel aid — Commission authorisation — General decisions and individual 
decisions— Adoption of individual decisions to authorise aid not coming under any of 
the categories of aid authorised by a general decision — Competence 
(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(c) and 95; Decision No 3855/91, Art. 1(1» 
I - 10293 
SUMMARY — CASE C-441/97 P 
2. ECSC — Steel aid — Commission authorisation — Conditions — Exclusion of a 
principle that aid is granted once and once only 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 95, first subpara.) 
1. Article 1 (1) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code 
contains no general prohibition of aid 
but simply defines in general terms the 
scope of the derogation provided for in 
Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. 
Accordingly, that provision of the Code 
is not intended to exclude the adoption 
of other measures derogating from the 
prohibition laid down in Article 4(c) of 
the ECSC Treaty. 
Moreover, Article 1(1) of the Code 
must be interpreted as meaning that 
the Commission is not competent, 
under the Code, to approve, in accor­
dance with the simplified procedures 
introduced by the latter, aid not cov­
ered by Articles 2 to 5 of the Code, and 
that, on the contrary, it is competent to 
adopt, pursuant to Article 95 of the 
ECSC Treaty, with the unanimous 
assent of the Council, supplementary 
measures, whether general or indivi­
dual, approving aid not covered by the 
Fifth Aid Code. 
Consequently, the Court of First 
Instance was right to hold, first, that 
the Fifth Aid Code represented a bind­
ing legal framework only for aid com­
patible with the ECSC Treaty and 
enumerated by it and, second, that the 
Commission is empowered to have 
recourse to Article 95 of the ECSC 
Treaty in order to adopt individual 
decisions. 
(see paras 39, 42-43) 
2. It is true that, on the basis of the first 
paragraph of Article 95 of the ECSC 
Treaty, the Commission could not in 
any circumstance authorise the grant of 
State aid which was not necessary to 
attain the objectives of that Treaty and 
would be likely to give rise to distor­
tion of competition in the common 
market in steel. 
However, it cannot be inferred from 
that provision or from the principle of 
necessity embodied in it that State aid 
is not necessary for a project for the 
restructuring of an undertaking unless 
it is granted once only. 
I - 10294 
WIRTSCHAFTSVEREINIGUNG STAHL AND OTHERS V COMMISSION 
Such an interpretation of the first 
paragraph of Article 95 of the ECSC 
Treaty would not be in conformity with 
the purpose of that provision, which is 
to grant the Commission power to 
meet unforeseen situations by taking 
account of the changing nature of 
market conditions. Indeed, application 
of the 'once and once only' principle 
would excessively restrict the category 
of aid capable of being regarded as 
necessary within the meaning of that 
provision and would not allow the 
Commission to examine, in each parti­
cular case, whether a project for 
restructuring aid was necessary in 
order to attain Treaty objectives. 
(see paras 53-55) 
I - 10295