62001TJ0109_EN
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
In Case T-109/01,
Fleuren Compost BV, established in Middelharnis (Netherlands), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by V. di Bucci and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/521/EC of 13 December 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for six manure-processing companies (OJ 2001 L 189, p. 13),
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of:
N.J. Forwood, President,
J. Pirrung,
P. Mengozzi,
A.W.H. Meij and
M. Vilaras, Judges,
Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 January 2004,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds
Legal framework
1. Article 87(1) EC provides:
" Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market."
2. Pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
3. The Commission communication concerning Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 1996 C 213, p. 4, hereinafter
" the SME guidelines" ) provides, in point 4.2.1, that the Commission may grant exemptions pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC for aid to SMEs situated outside regions eligible for national regional aid where the intensity of the aid measured in gross grant equivalent as a proportion of the eligible costs does not exceed:
─ 15% in the case of small enterprises,
─ 7.5% in the case of
" medium-sized enterprises" .
4. Under point 3.2 of the SME guidelines, in order for an enterprise to be considered small or medium-sized within the meaning of the guidelines, it must:
─ have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 40 million or an annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 27 million,
─ conform to the criterion of independence, namely, not have 25% or more of the capital or of the voting rights owned by an enterprise falling outside the definition of a
" medium-sized enterprise"
or of a small enterprise, whichever may apply, or jointly by several such enterprises.
5. In addition, in point 4.1 of the SME guidelines, under the heading
" General principles", the Commission points out that, in order to qualify for the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(c) EC, a State aid
" must ... be in the nature of an incentive: it must under no circumstances have the sole effect of continuously or periodically reducing the costs which the enterprise would normally have to bear, while otherwise leaving the status quo untouched, as in the case of operating aid ... and it must be necessary in order to achieve objectives which market forces alone would not secure" . The Commission specifies that
" [t]he objectives pursued must be in the Community interest"
and that
" the aid must be proportionate to the handicaps which have to be overcome in order to secure the socio-economic benefits deemed to be desirable on grounds of the Community interest: the positive effect must outweigh the damaging effect which State aid has on competition and trade" .
6. The Commission ' s communication concerning the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 1994 C 72, p. 3, hereinafter
" the environmental guidelines" ) defines the conditions under which State aid for environmental protection may be eligible for one of the exemptions provided for in Article 87 EC.
7. Under point 3.2.3.A of the environmental guidelines, aid for environmental investment to comply with new mandatory standards or other new legal obligations and involving adaptation of plant and equipment to meet the new requirements can be authorised up to the level of 15% gross of the eligible costs. However, that aid may be granted only for a limited period and only in respect of plants which have been in operation for at least two years when the new standards or obligations enter into force.
8. Under point 3.2.3.B of the environmental guidelines, aid for environmental investment which allows significantly higher levels of environmental protection to be attained than those required by mandatory standards may be authorised for up to a maximum of 30% gross of the eligible investment costs.
Facts
9. By decision of 6 July 1989 (hereinafter
" the approval decision" ), the Commission approved the Netherlands aid scheme known as
" Bijdrageregeling Proefprojecten Mestverwerking"
(aid scheme for pilot projects in manure-processing, hereinafter
" the BPM scheme" ) for 1989 to 1990. By Decision C 17/90 (ex N 88/90) of 14 December 1990 (OJ 1991 C 82, p. 3, hereinafter
" the extension decision" ), the Commission approved the extension of that scheme from 1990 to 1994 under the exemption provided for in Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3)(c) EC). The Netherlands authorities were thus authorised to grant
" before 1995"
investment aid of up to 35% of eligible costs for about 20 large-scale manure-processing plants.
10. The applicant produces fresh compost intended for mushroom cultivation, by processing manure composed of a mix of horse manure, poultry dung, gypsum and straw.
11. On 1 December 1994, the applicant applied to the Netherlands authorities for aid under the BPM scheme for closed manure storage and processing facilities.
12. By letter of 5 December 1994, the authorities acknowledged receipt of that application in the following terms:
" I received your application for a grant of aid [under the BPM scheme] on 1 December 1994.
Your application will be dealt with.
...
"
13. After various complaints had drawn the Commission ' s attention to aid granted by the Netherlands to manure-processing projects after the period covered by the extension decision, the Commission contacted the Netherlands authorities on that matter. In response to a letter of 7 August 1995 from the latter, the Commission, inter alia, sent them a letter on 21 August 1995 which was worded as follows:
" [The Commission] takes note that no aid was granted after 31 December 1994 under the [BPM scheme] but that five applications are still pending.
Since the Commission approved that scheme only for 1990 to 1994, it is your responsibility pursuant to Article [88](3) of the EC Treaty to inform us within the prescribed period of any implementation of that scheme after 31 December 1994. I would appreciate your confirming to the Commission within a month of receipt of this letter that you will comply with this notification requirement.
The Commission has also learned that some projects for which aid had been granted before 31 December 1994 can be carried out only by 31 December 1997 at the latest. The aid in those cases is covered by the Commission ' s approval.
"
14. By letter of 21 December 1995, the Netherlands authorities informed the applicant that it had been granted aid in the amount of NLG 1 073 925, namely 4.5% of the amount which could be covered by a subsidy, in accordance with its application and the provisions of the BPM scheme. The Commission was not informed of the grant of that aid.
15. By letter of 23 April 1996, the applicant was informed that a first instalment had been made available to it. By letter of 11 September 1997, the applicant presented its final account. By letter of 3 October 1997, it was definitively granted aid.
16. After receiving a further complaint, concerning aid granted to the undertaking Industriële Mestverwerkingsnetwerk Noord-Limburg in December 1997, the Commission, by letter of 22 January 1998 and two subsequent reminders of 15 April and 29 July 1998, asked the Netherlands authorities for additional information.
17. By letter of 6 August 1998, the Netherlands authorities sent the Commission a list of projects granted aid on dates which appeared to it to infringe the extension decision. The aid granted to the applicant was mentioned in that list.
18. By letter dated 15 July 1999 based on Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] EC (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), the Commission enjoined the Netherlands authorities to provide, within 20 working days, all relevant information enabling it to determine whether the aid measures concerned were covered by the BPM scheme, as approved by it, and to disclose if any other aid had been granted to such projects.
19. By letters of 12 and 19 October 1999, the Dutch authorities forwarded certain information to the Commission, without, however, answering all the questions raised in the Commission ' s demand for information.
20. By letter of 17 May 2000, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of six cases in which aid had been paid after the period covered by the extension decision (hereinafter
" the decision to initiate the procedure" ).
21. That decision was published on 23 September 2000 (OJ 2000 C 272, p. 22), in accordance with Article 26(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, and interested parties were invited to submit their comments on the aid at issue within one month of the date of publication (hereinafter
" the invitation to submit comments" ).
22. The Commission received no comments from the applicant or any other interested party in reaction to that publication.
23. On 13 December 2000, the Commission adopted Decision 2001/521/EC on the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for six manure-processing companies (hereinafter
" the contested decision" ). That decision, notified to the Netherlands under the number C(2000) 4070, was published on 11 July 2001 (OJ 2001 L 189, p. 13).
24. Under Article 1 of the contested decision,
" [t]he State aid which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has implemented in favour of the manure-processing companies Ferm-o-Feed BV, Fleuren Compost BV, Vloet Oploo BV, Smith Markelo, Arev Venhorst and Memon KPI, amounting to EUR 2 501 089, is incompatible with the common market" .
25. According to Article 2(1) of the contested decision,
" [t]he Kingdom of the Netherlands shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipients the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to them" .
26. The applicant was informed of the contested decision by a letter from the Netherlands authorities dated 9 March 2001, which it states it received on or about 12 March 2001.
Proceedings and forms of order sought
27. By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 18 May 2001, the applicant brought this action, in which it claims that the Court should:
─ annul the contested decision, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;
─ order the Commission to pay the costs.
28. The Commission contends that the Court should:
─ dismiss the application;
─ order the applicant to pay the costs.
29. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) decided to open the oral procedure and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, requested the Commission to submit certain documents. The Commission complied with that request within the period allowed.
30. The parties presented oral argument and replied to the questions put by the Court of First Instance at the hearing on 17 June 2003.
Law
31. In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 87(1) EC and manifest error of assessment; second, infringement of Article 88 EC and of the principle of legal certainty; third, infringement of the extension decision; fourth, infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC and manifest error of assessment; fifth, infringement of the requirement to state reasons; sixth, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; and seventh, infringement of the right to a fair hearing.
First plea in law: infringement of Article 87(1) EC and manifest error of assessment
Contested decision
32. The Commission states, in paragraphs 21 to 24 of the contested decision:
" (21) The investment aid granted by the Dutch Government was designed to allow and promote investment in manure facilities and hence favoured the companies in question. Processed animal manure is sold primarily as dry organic fertiliser in the form of manure pellets. The manure-processing plants are in competition with other manufacturers of organic and chemical fertilisers. Because this financial incentive strengthens those plants ' financial position, it threatens to distort competition within the European Union in that farmyard manure used as fertiliser competes with other organic fertilisers.
(22) According to a study on the sales potential in other countries for Dutch processed animal manure ... carried out for the Dutch ministry in question in 1990, animal and vegetable fertilisers compete not only on a local basis but also on the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Greek markets. From 1988 to 1990 the Dutch share of total intra-Community trade in those products amounted to between 44% and 60%. Dutch exports of processed animal manure to other Member States can be expected to increase, primarily as a result of the aforementioned projects.
(23) In spite of the information injunction, the Dutch authorities failed to provide the requisite details on the market situation of the individual companies. Such details would have made it possible to assess each company ' s impact on the manure-processing and fertiliser markets. For that reason, the Commission based its assessment on data for the market as a whole, as indicated above.
(24) Consequently, the aid is likely to affect trade between Member States in the sector concerned and thus constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1).
"
Arguments of the parties
33. The applicant claims, first, that the aid at issue does not serve to increase its production capacity but its sole objective and effect is to make it possible to equip its production plants in an environmentally-friendly manner.
34. Secondly, the applicant maintains that the aid at issue does not affect trade between Member States.
35. The obligation imposed on the applicant by the Netherlands authorities to produce fertiliser in closed facilities in order to avoid nuisances caused by odours increases the cost of the product which makes its export difficult, if not impossible. In its reply, it states that it exports barely 2% of its compost, and exclusively to Belgium. It also states that as a result of the high cost of transporting compost and the risk that it will ferment during transport, there is no economic interest in shipping it for distances greater than 200 km.
36. Thirdly, the applicant claims that the aid at issue neither distorts nor threatens to distort competition in the internal market.
37. The applicant maintains that, given their special character and specific purpose, that is to say, mushroom cultivation, the products which it manufactures do not compete against organic and chemical fertilisers. In its reply, it also challenges the relevance of the study cited in paragraph 22 of the contested decision. That study relates only to animal fertilisers, which, according to the applicant, are not suitable for mushroom cultivation.
38. In parallel to those three arguments, the applicant claims that, before taking an unfavourable decision in its regard, the Commission should have insisted that the Netherlands authorities provide it with the information which would have allowed it to assess the real impact of the aid at issue on inter-State trade and, if those authorities persisted in their refusal, should have asked the applicant to provide that information. In that context, the applicant maintains that it cannot be charged with having failed to observe or, therefore, react to the invitation to submit comments. It takes the view that it could reasonably expect the Netherlands to take the requisite measures and make appropriate observations. It also considers that the Member State which grants aid has the obligation to inform the recipients of those measures. In that regard, it points out that, in the letter initiating the procedure, the Commission had asked the Netherlands authorities to send a copy of that letter to potential recipients without delay.
39. The Commission disputes those arguments in their entirety and in essence refers back to paragraphs 21 to 24 of the contested decision.
Findings of the Court
40. First, as regards the applicant ' s argument based on the Commission ' s alleged failure to insist that it be provided with information (see paragraph 38 above), it must be pointed out that during the review phase provided for in Article 88(2) EC, the Commission must give the interested parties an opportunity to submit their comments.
41. The Court has held, in proceedings concerning the application of that provision, that publication of a notice in the
Official Journal of the European Communities
is an appropriate means of informing all the parties concerned that a procedure has been initiated (Case 323/82
Intermills
v
Commission
[1984] ECR 3809, paragraph 17, and Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano
v
Commission
[2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 80). That communication is intended to obtain from the persons concerned all the information needed to guide the Commission with regard to its future action (Case 70/72
Commission
v
Germany
[1973] ECR 813, paragraph 19). Such a procedure also guarantees to the other Member States and the sectors concerned an opportunity to make their views known (Case 84/82
Germany
v
Commission
[1984] ECR 1451, paragraph 13).
42. However, the procedure for reviewing State aid is, in view of its general scheme, a procedure initiated in respect of the Member State responsible, in light of its Community obligations, for granting the aid (Case 234/84
Belgium
v
Commission
( " Meura " ) [1986] ECR 2263, paragraph 29, and
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, cited in paragraph 41 above, paragraph 81).
43. Under the procedure for reviewing State aid, interested parties other than the Member State concerned have only the role mentioned in paragraph 41 above and, in that regard, they cannot themselves lay claim to an exchange of arguments with the Commission such as that initiated in regard to that Member State (Case C-367/95 P
Commission
v
Sytraval and Brink ' s France
[1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 59, and
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, cited above, paragraph 82).
44. Of the interested parties, the recipient of the aid does not play a special role pursuant to any provision governing the procedure for the review of State aid. The procedure for the review of State aid is not a procedure initiated
" against"
the recipient or recipients of aid by virtue of which it or they could rely on rights as extensive as the rights of the defence as such ( Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, paragraph 83).
45. Therefore, since the decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Artic le 88(2) EC contains an adequate preliminary analysis by the Commission setting out the reasons for its doubts 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 adduce evidence to show that the aid is compatible with the common market and, if necessary, to plead specific circumstances relating to recovery of the aid already paid should the Commission require its repayment (see, by analogy,
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, paragraph 170).
46. In the present case, the applicant does not claim that the reasons given in the decision to initiate the procedure were not adequate to allow it properly to exercise its rights. Moreover, the Court of First Instance points out that the matters set out in paragraphs 21 to 24 of the contested decision had, in essence, already been set out in point 3.2 of the decision to initiate the procedure.
47. It is therefore appropriate to conclude that when the Commission has published the notice referred to in paragraph 41 of this judgment, as it has in the present case, that is to say, when in particular it has invited the recipient of aid to submit its comments and, as observed in paragraph 22 above, the recipient has failed to make use of that opportunity, the Commission has not infringed any of the recipient ' s rights ( Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, paragraphs 84 and 169). Nor can the Commission be held responsible for the failure by the Member State concerned to send the recipient of the aid a copy of the letter initiating the procedure.
48. In addition, while Article 88(2) EC requires the Commission to seek comments from interested parties before it reaches a decision, it does not prevent the Commission from determining aid to be incompatible with the common market in the absence of any such comments (Case C-113/00
Spain
v
Commission
[2002] ECR I-7601, paragraph 39).
49. Moreover, it cannot be complained that the Commission failed to take into account matters of fact or of law which could have been submitted to it during the administrative procedure but which were not, since it is under no obligation to consider, of its own motion and on the basis of prediction, what information might have been submitted to it (see to that effect
Commission
v
Sytraval and Brink ' s France, cited in paragraph 43 above, paragraph 60).
50. To the extent that the applicant relies, in support of its application, on information which was not available at the time when the contested decision was adopted or was not brought to the Commission ' s attention during the pre-litigation procedure, it must be recalled that in an action for annulment based on Article 230 EC the lawfulness of the Community measure concerned must be assessed in the light of the matters of fact and of law existing at the time when that measure was adopted (Joined Cases 15/76 and 16/76
France
v
Commission
[1979] ECR 321, paragraph 7, and Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94
British Airways and Others
v
Commission
[1998] ECR II-2405, paragraph 81).
51. Therefore, in accordance with the case-law, the legality of a decision concerning aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted ( Meura, cited in paragraph 42 above, paragraph 16, and
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, paragraph 168). A Member State therefore cannot rely before the Community judicature on matters of fact which were not put forward in the course of the pre-litigation procedure laid down in Article 88 EC (see to that effect Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92
Spain
v
Commission
[1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 31, and Case C-382/99
Netherlands
v
Commission
[2002] ECR I-5163, paragraphs 49 and 76).
52. However, it does not appear, on the basis of the matters of fact and of law which were brought to its attention or which were available to it when it took the contested decision, that the Commission committed any error of assessment in finding, for the reasons set out inter alia in paragraphs 21 to 24 of that decision, that the aid at issue constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, that it affects trade between Member States and that it distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
53. As regards the applicant ' s arguments which were put forward for the first time in the present application, even if they could be taken into consideration by the Court of First Instance despite the case-law referred to above, it must first of all be pointed out that the concept of aid encompasses advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking (Case C-241/94
France
v
Commission
[1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 34). The granting of aid under the BPM scheme indisputably meets that definition.
54. On the other hand, it is irrelevant that the objective of that scheme is to assist undertakings to meet their legal obligations as regards protection of the environment. According to settled case-law, Article 87(1) EC does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects (Case 173/73
Italy
v
Commission
[1974] ECR 709, paragraph 27, and
Netherlands
v
Commission, cited in paragraph 51 above, paragraph 61). Leaving aside the question whether the environmental guidelines apply in the present case, a question which will form part of the consideration of the fourth plea, the fact that aid granted under the BPM scheme promotes regard for the environment is not sufficient to exclude it outright from being categorised as aid for the purposes of Article 87 EC.
55. Second, the applicant ' s arguments based on the absence of an effect on trade between Member States must also be rejected, since, according to the information provided by the applicant itself to the Netherlands authorities in its application for a grant of aid under the BPM scheme, its exports were
" satisfactory, given the demand from Belgium and Germany" . Similarly, the report of the advisory committee on manure-processing ( " Adviescommissie Mestverwerking" ) of 22 May 1995, presented to the Netherlands authorities in the context of an evaluation of the aid application, mentions that the compost produced by the applicant is exported by it
" to Germany, among others" . The Court therefore finds that even if the exact percentage of the applicant ' s exported production is not known, the applicant engages fully in intra-Community trade by exporting substantial amounts of compost to other Member States.
56. Third, it is not possible to uphold the applicant ' s argument that the aid at issue does not distort or threaten to distort competition in the common market, since that aid in any event takes the form of a reduction in the production costs borne by recipient producers and is therefore likely to affect trade in the products in question.
57. When aid granted by a State or through State resources strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid (Case 730/79
Philip Morris
v
Commission
[1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11, and Case C-303/88
Italy
v
Commission
[1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 27). That is the case in this instance, since any undertaking other than those to which the measure at issue applies can finance new investments only on less advantageous terms, whether it is established in the Netherlands or in another Member State.
58. Contrary to the applicant ' s claim, the statement of reasons for the contested decision, as reproduced in paragraph 32 of this judgment, is sufficient to show the effect of the aid at issue on trade between Member States, since the aid concerns a product which is inherently likely to be the subject of trade between Member States. As the Commission rightly points out in its defence, a 200-km field of operation around the applicant ' s production plant allows the applicant to reach various parts of Belgium and Germany. Moreover, the aid at issue also provides the applicant with an advantage in relation to foreign competitors who wish to export to the Netherlands. Finally, the study referred to in paragraph 22 of the contested decision nowhere indicates that the study relates only to animal fertiliser which cannot be used for mushroom cultivation.
59. It follows from the foregoing that the Commission has sufficiently demonstrated the effect of the aid at issue on competition and on trade between Member States.
60. In the light of all those considerations, the first plea must be rejected.
Second and third pleas in law: infringement of Article 88 EC and the principle of legal certainty and infringement of the extension decision
61. It is appropriate to consider jointly the second and third pleas, since they relate essentially to whether the aid at issue falls within the scope of application
ratione temporis
of the extension decision.
Contested decision
62. In paragraphs 17 to 20 of the contested decision, the Commission states:
" (17) In order to determine whether the aid for the six companies in question had to be classified as existing aid, the Commission first examined to what extent the BPM scheme applied to the aforementioned projects.
(18) The main legal question in these six cases is the difference in interpretation as to what constitutes the legally binding act granting the aid. Although the Dutch Government argues that the legally binding act by which the competent authorities undertake to grant aid is the grant letter, it takes the view that all the grants for which a grant letter was issued after 31 December 1994 are covered by the [BPM] scheme because the letter of confirmation was sent before that deadline.
(19) Having scrutinised the documentation on the administrative procedure in the relevant cases, the Commission takes the view that the legally binding act is the grant letter. The letter of confirmation was merely an acknowledgement of receipt of the aid application without any prior examination of whether the conditions of the aid scheme had been met. Furthermore, the granting of aid was conditional on an evaluation by an advisory committee comprising representatives of various ministries. Only after this committee had made an assessment at national level did the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, which is competent in this matter, issue a grant letter indicating the amount of the eligible costs, the amount of the aid and the conditions under which it was granted. The analysis of the procedural steps showed that the aid was not granted automatically to all applicants, but on the basis of a discretionary decision by the competent authorities.
(20) The Commission therefore considers that the date on which the aid was granted is the date on which the grant letter was sent, as confirmed by the Dutch authorities in the first instance. Accordingly, the aid granted to the six manure-processing companies was not covered by the [BPM] scheme and should be regarded as unlawful aid which was implemented in breach of Article 88(3).
"
Arguments of the parties
63. The applicant maintains in essence that, in contrast to what is stated in the contested decision, the Netherlands authorities confirmed the granting of the aid at issue before 31 December 1994. That aid must therefore be considered existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(3) EC and Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, so that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 88 EC and the principle of legal certainty (second plea) as well as its own extension decision (third plea).
64. According to the applicant, the principle of legal certainty requires that when national authorities confirm the granting of aid to an applicant within the period for which the Commission has approved an aid scheme, the latter cannot subsequently object that the aid is not covered
ratione temporis
by the approval when, as in this case, it has been demonstrated that all the conditions for the granting of the aid were met.
65. In its reply, the applicant also refers to a document by the Netherlands authorities entitled
" Statement of reasons for the Official Gazette relating to the amendment of 13 October 1994", which clearly shows that, according to those authorities, applications submitted before 1 January 1995 would be dealt with under the BPM scheme and would be covered by the Commission ' s approval.
66. In its observations at the hearing concerning the documents produced by the Commission at the request of the Court of First Instance (see paragraph 29 above), the applicant also called in question the lack of clarity of the extension decision as regards the final date for granting aid under the BPM scheme. The applicant maintains that it is not clear from that decision or from the correspondence between the Commission and the Netherlands authorities which preceded its adoption that national decisions to grant aid under the BPM scheme had to be taken before 31 December 1994.
67. The Commission disputes those arguments in their entirety and refers, in essence, to paragraphs 17 to 20 of the contested decision.
Findings of the Court
68. In order to reply to the second and third pleas of the application, it is first necessary to delimit the scope
ratione temporis
of the extension decision.
69. The letter of 1 March 1990 sent to the Commission by the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the European Communities, which notified the plan to extend the BPM scheme, states that
" [t]he decision to grant this aid is prompted by the urgent need to establish a manure-processing capacity of at least 6 million tonnes before 1995" .
70. Moreover, a letter of 17 April 1990 which the Permanent Representation sent the Commission, setting out the changes made to the BPM scheme at the time it was extended, states in response to a question by the Commission as to how long the altered scheme would apply that it would in principle remain in force
" until 1995"
( " tot 1995" ). It is anticipated that the specific support measures provided for under that scheme will be granted
" up to and including 1994"
( " tot en met 1994" ). Finally, in reply to a question by the Commission concerning the number of pilot plants intended to benefit under the scheme, it states that some 20 factories are involved
" during the period up to 1995"
( " in de periode tot 1995" ).
71. As is clear from its wording, the extension decision sought to approve investment aid which the Netherlands Government
" intended to grant to manure-processing plants [for the period] 1990-1994"
for the purpose of establishing a
" first group of 20 large-scale manure-processing plants before 1995" .
72. Only aid granted under the BPM scheme during 1990 to 1994, and in any event before 1995, is therefore covered by the extension decision.
73. In order to assess whether the aid at issue falls within the scope of application
ratione temporis
of that decision, as defined in the preceding paragraph, it is necessary to examine whether it can be considered as having been granted before 1995.
74. In that regard, the Commission rightly takes the view that the relevant criterion is
" the legally binding act by which the competent [national] authorities undertake to grant aid"
(see paragraph 19 of the contested decision, cited in paragraph 62 above).
75. By contrast, it cannot be accepted that the mere notification to the applicant, on 5 December 1994, of a letter confirming receipt of the application for the aid at issue is a sufficient basis for considering that the aid was granted before 1995, as suggested by the argument of the Netherlands Government (see paragraph 18 of the contested decision, cited in paragraph 62 above). Both the wording of the extension decision and the rule that exceptions to the general principle prohibiting State aid must be strictly interpreted preclude such an extension of the temporal scope of the approved aid scheme.
76. As for the argument which the applicant claims is based on the principle of legal certainty, it is founded on the premiss that the Netherlands authorities confirmed the grant of the aid to it by letter of 5 December 1994. However, that premiss is incorrect, so that the argument has no factual basis. As is apparent from its very terms (see paragraph 12 above), the Netherlands authorities ' letter of 5 December 1994 is simply an acknowledgement of receipt of the aid application submitted by the applicant, sent without any other form of examination. Such a letter in no way commits its author as to the grant of the aid applied for, which must be the subject of a subsequent evaluation and decision by the competent authorities, as the Commission rightly pointed out in paragraph 19 of the contested decision. In this case, the decision to grant aid was adopted on or about 21 December 1995, the date when it was notified to the applicant (see paragraph 14 above).
77. It follows from the foregoing that the aid at issue cannot be considered as having been granted before 1995 and is therefore not covered by the extension decision.
78. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the fact that, in its consolidated version resulting from the amendments of 7 August 1989, 15 May 1991, 13 April 1992, 8 March 1994 and 19 October 1994 to the original version of 29 April 1988, the BPM scheme provides, in Article 15(4), that [ " A]pplications [for the granting of aid] may be submitted until 31 December 1994" .
79. The Court observes that, in contrast to this consolidated version, the earlier versions of the BPM scheme, and in particular those which formed the basis for the adoption of both the approval decision and the extension decision, did not contain any such reference. It was first introduced into Article 15(4) of the BPM scheme by the amendment of that scheme dated 13 October 1994, published in the
Nederlandse Staatscourant
of 19 October 1994. It was brought to the Commission ' s attention by a letter from the Netherlands authorities of 10 November 1994. In its letter of reply of 16 December 1994, the Commission immediately challenged it, insisting on the fact that any commitments under the BPM scheme after 31 December 1994 must be considered as an extension that had to be communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty.
Decision on costs
Costs
80. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party ' s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must, having regard to the form of order sought by the defendant, be ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
hereby:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.