Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid - Publication by the Commission of the notice of authorisation of aid - Purpose - Notice sufficiently precise - Consequences - Action brought by a third party who did not challenge the decision authorising the aid - Inadmissible in so far as the action seeks to challenge the aid on the basis of Article 92 (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the Treaty (now Article 88 EC)

(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

2. Competition - Administrative proceedings - Investigation of complaints - Decision to take no further action - Subject to review by the Court

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3(2))

3. State aid - Examination by the Commission - Aspects of the aid which are incompatible with Treaty provisions other than those relating to State aid - Aspects indissolubly linked to the purpose of the aid - Assessment by means of the procedure for examining aid - Review by the Court

(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93 (now Art. 88 EC))

Summary

1. Since aid concerns an indeterminate group of persons, the sole purpose of the requirement that aid authorisation under Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) be notified is to oblige the Commission to ensure that all persons who may be concerned are alerted. Publication of an authorisation notice in the Official Journal is an adequate means of informing all those concerned that aid has been authorised by the Commission on the basis of that article.

If the details given in the notice are sufficiently precise to enable a third party to realise that it is definitely concerned by the aid authorised, it may not subsequently challenge the lawfulness of the measure on the basis of Article 92 (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the Treaty if it did not challenge the decision authorising the aid within the time-limits laid down by Article 173 of the Treaty (now Article 230 EC).

( see paras 48 to 50 )

2. Where the Commission has decided to proceed no further with a complaint regarding competition and not to carry out an investigation, the purpose of the review of legality to be made by the Court of First Instance is to ensure that the contested decision is not based on materially incorrect facts or vitiated by an error of law, a manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers.

( see para. 74 )

3. It is clear from the general scheme of the Treaty that the procedure provided for in Article 92 (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the Treaty (now Article 88 EC) must never produce a result which is contrary to the specific provisions of the Treaty. The Commission's obligation to ensure that Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty are applied consistently with other provisions of the Treaty is all the more necessary where those other provisions pursue the same aim of ensuring undistorted competition in the common market.

However, aspects of aid which contravene provisions of the Treaty other than Articles 92 and 93 may be so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately.

Where this is so, the effects of those aspects on the compatibility or incompatibility of the aid as a whole must be assessed by means of the procedure under Article 93 of the Treaty. The position is different, however, if it is possible when aid is being analysed to separate those conditions or factors which, even though they form part of the aid, may be regarded as not being necessary for the attainment of its object or for its proper functioning.

In the case of disputed measures forming part of aid authorised by the Commission, the Court must first determine whether the measures are aspects or elements of the aid authorised and, if so, whether they entail restrictive effects which go beyond what is necessary for the aid to attain the objectives permissible under the Treaty.

( see paras 75 to 78 )