Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:116
Date: 2002-05-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: General;Pleas in law;Commission discretion
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Claim in an 
application that a direction be issued to an institution — Inadmissible 
(Arts 230 EC and 233 EC) 
II - 2427 
SUMMARY — CASE T-126/99 
2. State aid — Prohibited — Derogations — Aid that may be considered compatible 
with the common market — Discretion of the Commission — judicial review — 
Limits — Legality to be assessed on the basis of the information existing at the time 
when the decision was adopted 
(EC Treaty, Art. 92(3) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3) EC)) 
3. State aid — Prohibited — Derogations — Planning and development work com­
menced before the date of notification of the aid — Whether the criterion for 
inducement satisfied — To be assessed in the light of the circumstances of each case 
(EC Treaty, Art. 92(3) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3) EC)) 
4. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Manifest error of assessment — Error 
which has no decisive effect on the outcome — Plea inoperative 
1. In an action for annulment based on 
Article 230 EC, it is not for the Com­
munity judicature to issue directions to 
the institutions. If the Court annuls the 
contested measure, it is then for the 
administration concerned to adopt, in 
accordance with Article 233 EC, the 
necessary measures to comply with the 
judgment annulling that measure. 
(see para. 17) 
2. The Commission enjoys a broad power 
of assessment in the application of 
Article 92(3) of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, Article 87(3) EC), which 
involves complex economic and social 
appraisals. Since it is not for the 
Community Court to substitute its 
own economic assessment for that of 
the author of the decision, the Court 
must, in reviewing a decision adopted 
in such a context, confine its review to 
determining whether the Commission 
complied with the rules governing 
procedure and the provision of the 
statement of reasons, whether the facts 
on which the contested finding was 
based are accurately stated and 
whether there has been any manifest 
error of assessment or any misuse of 
powers. Furthermore, the legality of a 
Community measure falls to be 
assessed on the basis of the elements 
of fact and of law existing at the time 
when the measure was adopted and the 
complex assessments made by the 
Commission must be examined solely 
on the basis of the information avail­
able to it at the time when those 
assessments were made. 
(see paras 32-33) 
3. An undertaking which may potentially 
be the recipient of new State aid can 
II - 2428 
GRAPHISCHER MASCHINENBAU v COMMISSION 
have no certainty of actually receiving 
it before the authorities of the Member 
State have notified that aid to the 
Commission and the Commission has 
declared it to be compatible with the 
common market. The fact that aid is 
notified has no effect, in itself, on its 
compatibility with the common mar­
ket. Thus, notification of the aid in no 
way removes the uncertainty as to its 
approval at Community level. So long 
as the Commission has not taken a 
decision approving it and so long as the 
period for bringing an action against 
that decision has not expired, the 
recipient cannot be certain as to the 
lawfulness of the proposed aid which 
alone is capable of giving rise on the 
part of the recipient to a legitimate 
expectation. Moreover, the absence of 
absolute certainty as to the grant of aid 
and, with it, of legitimate expectations, 
at the time when the potential bene­
ficiary decides to proceed with restruc­
turing does not mean that the assur­
ances given previously by national or 
regional authorities had no effect as an 
inducement. 
In those circumstances, the Commis­
sion cannot infer from the mere fact 
that the development was commenced 
before the date of notification of the 
aid intended to finance it that that aid 
does not satisfy the criterion concern­
ing inducement. It is for the Commis­
sion to assess the circumstances of each 
case in order to determine whether the 
prospect of the grant of the aid is 
sufficiently likely to satisfy the criterion 
as to inducement. 
(see paras 41-43) 
4. In an action for annulment, a plea 
based on a manifest error of assessment 
is inoperative and accordingly would 
not be sufficient to warrant annulment 
of the contested decision if, in the 
particular circumstances of the case, it 
could not have had a decisive effect on 
the outcome. 
(see para. 49) 
II - 2429