Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:69
Date: 1998-03-31
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Applications by undertakings or their associations;Acts of the institutions;Investments and financial aid;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the J u d g m e n t 
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual con­
cern to them — Commission decision, adopted within the framework of the ECSC Treaty, 
finding aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment — No 
action brought by the undertaking in receipt of the aid against the decision opening the pro­
cedure for examination of the aid — Right of action 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33) 
2. ECSC — Aid to the steel industry — Authorisation by the Commission — Regional invest­
ment aid — Commission required to adopt a decision on the compatibility of aid with the 
common market by 31 December 1994 — Commission not empowered to authorise aid after 
that date — Consequence — Incompatibility of the aid with the common market 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 4(c); Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC, Arts 1, 5 and 6) 
II - 609 
SUMMARY — CASE T-129/96 
3. ECSC — Aid to the steel industry — Authorisation by the Commission — Regional invest­
ment aid — Conditions — Notification of planned aid in good time — Failure to respect the 
deadline — Effects 
(Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC, Arts 5 and 6(1)) 
4. ECSC — Aid to the steel industry — Recovery of unlawful aid — Possibility that the recipi­
ents may have legitimate expectations — Protection — Conditions and limits 
5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — ECSC decisions 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 15, first para.) 
1. Since a Commission decision finding aid 
to be incompatible with the common 
market and ordering its repayment pro­
duces its own legal effects, the undertak­
ing to which the aid was granted has the 
right to bring an action for the annulment 
of such a decision, irrespective of whether 
or not it challenged the decision to open 
the procedure for examination of the aid. 
2. As regards the application of Decision 
N o 3855/91 establishing Community 
rules for aid to the steel industry, the 
deadline of 31 December 1994 laid down 
for the payment of regional investment 
aids is necessarily the deadline imposed 
on the Commission for adopting deci­
sions on the compatibility of that cat­
egory of aid. Thereafter, such aid can no 
longer be deemed compatible with the 
common market on the basis of Article 
1(1) of Decision N o 3855/91 and is thus 
prohibited pursuant to Article 4(c) of the 
ECSC Treaty. 
In view of the provisions of Decision N o 
3855/91, the aid referred to therein may 
be put into effect only with the prior 
approval of the Commission. Secondly, 
unlike the EC Treaty, which empowers 
the Commission to adopt decisions on 
the compatibility of State aids on a per­
manent basis, the derogation laid down in 
Decision No 3855/91 to the principle of 
the absolute prohibition of aid in Article 
4(c) of the ECSC Treaty is limited in time 
and, furthermore, must be interpreted 
even more strictly since, according to the 
11th recital in the preamble to the 
decision, 'as regional investment aids are 
exceptional in nature, there would be no 
justification in maintaining them beyond 
the appropriate period for the modernisa­
tion of the steel plants concerned, which 
is set at three years'. 
3. The general scheme of the procedural 
provisions of Decision N o 3855/91 estab­
lishing Community rules for aid to the 
steel industry, and, in particular, Article 
6(1) thereof, indicates that it was designed 
to afford the Commission a period of at 
least six months within which to give a 
I I - 6 1 0 
PREUSSAG STAHL ν COMMISSION 
decision on the compatibility of planned 
aid notified to it. 
Since, in the case of aid granted for 
investment under regional aid schemes 
within the meaning of Article 5 of that 
decision, the Commission therefore needs 
at least six months before the deadline of 
31 December 1994 in order to open and 
close the procedure before that deadline, 
where planned aid was notified after 30 
June 1994 the Commission was no longer 
required to adopt a decision on its com­
patibility before 31 December 1994. 
4. Undertakings to which State aid has been 
granted may not entertain a legitimate 
expectation that the aid is lawful unless it 
has been granted in compliance with the 
appropriate procedure, something which 
a diligent businessman ought to be able to 
ascertain. Furthermore, an individual may 
rely on the principle of protection of 
legitimate expectations only in so far as 
the Community administration has led 
him to entertain justified hopes by giving 
him specific assurances. 
5. The statement of the reasons for a 
decision satisfies the requirements of the 
first paragraph of Article 15 of the ECSC 
Treaty provided it clearly and unequivo­
cally reveals the Commission's reasoning 
and thus enables the persons concerned 
to know the reasons for the measure 
adopted so that they can defend their 
rights and ascertain whether or not the 
decision was well founded and the Com­
munity judicature to exercise its power of 
review in that respect. 
I I - 6 1 1