Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2004:246
Date: 2004-04-29
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Statement of reasons;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. State aid – Concept – Differentiation between undertakings in relation to charges – Excluded – Condition – Differentiation inherent in the system of levies in question – Burden of proof on the Member State concerned (Art. 87(1) EC) 2. State aid – Concept – Exemption granted under a system involving the payment of levies but not intended to generate tax revenue – No bearing on classification as aid (Art. 87(1) EC) 3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) 1. Since the concept of State aid does not cover measures which differentiate between undertakings in relation to charges where that differentiation is the result of the nature and general scheme of the system of levies in question, it is for the Member State which has introduced such a differentiation to show that that is actually the case. (see paras 42-43) 2. The fact that a State measure providing for the payment of levies by a category of undertakings is not intended to generate tax revenue does not suffice to exclude outright its attendant exemption in favour of certain undertakings from classification as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Article 87(1) EC does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or their aims but defines them in relation to their effects. (see para. 51) 3. The obligation to state reasons constitutes an essential procedural requirement which must be distinguished from the question of the merits of those reasons, which concern the substantive legality of the contested measure. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be adapted to the nature of the measure in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (see para. 65)