62020TJ0582_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 October 2022 –Ighoga Region 10 and Others v Commission
(Case T‑582/20) (
1
)
(State aid – Construction of a hotel and congress centre in Ingolstadt – Decision finding that there is no State aid – Procedural rights of interested parties – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – No serious difficulties)
1.
State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Compatibility of aid with the internal market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept – Objective nature – Burden of proof – Judicial review – Limits
(Art. 108(2) and (3), TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 4(2) and (3))
(see paragraphs 24-31, 35-43)
2.
State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Compatibility of aid with the internal market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept – Objective nature – Burden of proof – Circumstances enabling the existence of such difficulties to be established – Insufficiency or incompleteness of the examination carried out by the Commission – Lack of evidence
(Art. 108(2) and (3), TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 4(2) and (3))
(see paragraphs 60, 65-76, 84-98, 101-105, 110-118, 121-127, 130-136, 155-160, 162, 168-175, 179, 180, 182, 184, 187-191, 194-198, 200, 202, 205-207, 212, 213, 218-220)
3.
State aid – Examination of complaints – Obligations of the Commission – Preliminary examination phase – Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries – Scope – Diligent and impartial examination of the complaint
(Art. 108(3), TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 12(1))
(see paragraphs 61, 62)
4.
State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Compatibility of aid with the internal market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept – Objective nature – Burden of proof – Circumstances enabling the existence of such difficulties to be established – Obligation for the Commission to seek, on its own initiative and in the absence of any evidence to that effect, potentially relevant information which was not brought to its attention – None
(Art. 108(2) and (3), TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Arts 4(3) and (4), 12(1))
(see paragraphs 63, 64, 161)
5.
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action by parties concerned within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU – Identification of the subject matter of the action – Action designed to safeguard the procedural rights of the parties concerned – Pleas capable of being invoked
(Arts 108(2), and 263, fourth para., TFEU)
(see paragraph 83)
6.
State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment – Scope of the burden of proof on the Commission
(Art. 107(1), TFEU)
(see paragraph 151)
7.
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid – Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure – Brief summary of reasons leading the Commission to conclude that there were no serious difficulties assessing compatibility of the aid concerned with the internal market – Sufficient statement of reasons
(Art. 296, second para., TFEU)
(see paragraphs 208-210)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 e.V. (Ighoga Region 10), MJ and MK to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
3.
Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.