Case C‑132/12 P

Stichting Woonpunt and Others

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — State aid — Schemes for aid granted in favour of housing corporations — Compatibility decision — Commitments provided by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Action for annulment — Conditions governing admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Beneficiaries who are individually and directly concerned — Notion of a ‘closed circle’’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 27 February 2014

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action brought by an undertaking which is a beneficiary of existing State aid against the Commission decision declaring it compatible with the internal market subject to certain appropriate measures — Conditions — Action capable of conferring a benefit on the party who brought it — Admissibility

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Commission decision declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market — Procedure under Article 19(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 — Measures duplicated by national law — Action brought by an undertaking which is a beneficiary of existing aid — Admissibility

Appeals — Appeal founded — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Absence — Final review of the admissibility of the action by the appeal court

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market — Action brought by an undertaking which is identifiable at the time when the decision was adopted and is part of a limited class of traders — Admissibility

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept — Commission decision declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market — Implementation of the commitments by national legislation — Not included

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Absolute bar to proceeding — Obligation for the General Court to examine the existence of a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU

In the field of State aid, where an applicant seeks the annulment of a Commission decision not to raise objections, under Article 4(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, on the basis of the infringement of its procedural rights provided for in Article 6 of that regulation, it is for that applicant to show that, during the preliminary phase of examination of the measure notified, the Commission should have had doubts as to the compatibility of that measure with the internal market. Since the appellant is the potential beneficiary of aid declared compatible with the internal market following a preliminary examination, it cannot claim that the General Court erred in law by infringing its procedural rights. (see paras 30, 31)

In so far as the criterion which makes the admissibility of an action brought by a natural or legal person against a decision addressed to another person subject to the conditions governing admissibility laid down in the fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU raises an absolute bar to proceeding which the European Union Courts may consider at any time, even of their own motion, the General Court cannot limit itself to an examination of the condition that the appellants must be individually concerned, within the meaning of the second limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. It must also carry out an examination as to the admissibility of that action in the light of the other, less stringent, conditions set out in the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, and the examination of which was in no way prejudiced by the finding that the appellants were not individually concerned. By failing to carry out such an examination, the General Court errs in law. However, such an error is irrelevant if it transpires that the appellants’ action did not satisfy the conditions governing admissibility set out in the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. (see paras 45-48)

In the context of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person under the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the question whether a regulatory act entails implementing measures should be assessed by reference to the position of the person pleading the right to bring proceedings. Furthermore, in order to determine whether the measure being challenged entails implementing measures, reference should be made exclusively to the subject-matter of the action. An action does not satisfy the conditions governing admissibility laid down in the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU where it seeks annulment of a decision by which the Commission confirms that an existing aid measure is compatible with the common market, following commitments provided by the authorities of a Member State amending the aid scheme from which the appellants benefitted and that decision does not define the specific and actual consequences, for the appellants’ activities, of the application of those commitments. (see paras 50-54)

Third parties may be individually concerned by a decision addressed to another person only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed. In that regard, the mere possibility of determining more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to those persons as long as that measure is applied in accordance with an objective legal or factual situation defined by the act in question. However, where the decision affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons may be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of traders and that that can be the case particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by the individual prior to its adoption. (see paras 57-59

In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the decision of the General Court is set aside the Court of Justice may give final judgment in the matter where the state of the proceedings so permits. While the Court of Justice is not in a position to give judgment on the substance of the action before the General Court, it may give final judgment on the admissibility of that action where it has the information necessary to enable it to do so. (see paras 65, 66)

In the context of an action brought by natural or legal persons under the second limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the appellants must be concerned not only individually but also directly by the act which they are seeking to have annulled, in the sense that that act must directly affect the legal situation of those parties and leave no discretion to the authorities responsible for implementing that act, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from EU law alone, without the application of any other intermediate rules. In the context of the procedure under Article 19(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, it is the Commission’s decision recording the proposals of the Member State which renders those proposals binding. The fact that the amendments recorded by the contested decision were adopted by the national legislation cannot call that finding into question since the national authorities do not have any discretion when implementing that decision. Consequently, that decision directly affects the legal position of the beneficiaries of that aid. (see paras 68, 72-74)