Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2003:444
Date: 2003-09-11
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Acts of the institutions;Investments and financial aid;Appeals;Statement of the grounds on which judgments are based
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - successful
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — ECSC 
Decision 
(Art. 15 CS) 
2. Procedure — Grounds of judgments — Scope 
I - 8461 
SUMMARY — CASE C-197/99 P 
3. ECSC — Steel aid — Commission Decision — Legality to be assessed in the light of 
the information available when the decision was adopted — Member State granting 
the aid and the recipient thereof to be diligent as regards the communication of all 
relevant information 
(General Decision No 3855/91, Art. 6(4)) 
4. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the appraisal of the evidence — Not 
possible except where the sense has been distorted 
1. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 15 CS must be appropriate to 
the act at issue and must disclose in a 
clear and unequivocal fashion the rea­
soning followed by the institution 
which adopted the measure in question 
in such a way as to enable the persons 
concerned to ascertain the reasons for 
the measure and to enable the compet­
ent court to exercise its power of 
review. It is not necessary for the 
reasoning to go into all the relevant 
facts and points of law, since the 
question whether the statement of 
reasons meets the requirements of 
Article 15 CS must be assessed with 
regard not only to its wording but also 
to its context and to all the legal rules 
governing the matter in question. 
(see para. 72) 
2. The Court of First Instance is required 
to give reasons for its decisions but is 
not obliged to respond in detail to 
every single argument advanced by the 
applicant, particularly if the argument 
is not sufficiently clear and precise and 
was not adequately supported by evi­
dence. 
(see para. 81) 
3. The legality of a decision concerning 
State aid must be assessed in the light 
of the information available to the 
Commission when the decision was 
adopted. 
A Member State cannot rely on infor­
mation which it failed to provide to the 
Commission during the administrative 
procedure in order to challenge the 
legality of such a decision. 
Since the decision to initiate the pro­
cedure provided for by Article 6(4) of 
I - 8462 
BELGIUM v COMMISSION 
the Fifth Steel Aid Code contains an 
adequate preliminary analysis by the 
Commission setting out the reasons for 
the doubts it entertained regarding the 
compatibility of the aid in question 
with the common market, it is for the 
Member State concerned and, where 
appropriate, the recipient of the aid to 
put forward arguments to show that 
the aid is compatible with the common 
market. 
(see paras 86-88) 
4. Although it is for the Court of First 
Instance alone to assess the value 
which should be attached to the evi­
dence produced, a plea alleging dis­
tortion of the clear sense of that 
evidence is admissible in an appeal. 
(see para. 121) 
I - 8463