The continuation of an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances, taking account, in particular, of the consequences of the alleged unlawfulness and of the nature of the damage claimed to have been sustained.

Such an interest arises, first of all, from the applicant’s status as complainant and from the rejection in part and in substance of its complaint by the contested provision.

The applicant is an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), as amended, ‘whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid’, who thus by definition has an ‘interest’ in the formal investigation procedure leading to the adoption of a decision by the Commission and, accordingly, in view of the rejection of its complaint by that decision, has an interest in bringing an action against that decision adversely affecting it. The applicant is also the interested party which submitted the complaint leading to the opening of the formal investigation procedure and which, in the context of that complaint, explained the reasons for its submission.

Even though the contested decision, and thus the contested provision, did not constitute an explicit response to the applicants’ complaint, the fact remains that, in contrast to the applicant’s claims in its complaint, the Commission found in its decision that the scheme at issue could continue to apply in certain situations described therein. Such a rejection is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings in the present case in that the annulment of that rejection on the basis of the applicant’s single plea is likely to procure an advantage for it, consisting in the scheme at issue being declared unlawful and prohibited, including in the situations envisaged by the contested provision.

It follows that the circumstance claimed by the Commission and which allegedly arose after the present action was brought, to the effect that the competitor was not able to benefit from the scheme at issue, declared unlawful by the contested decision, is not capable of calling into question the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings against the contested provision. If it were otherwise, and particularly if the interested parties, especially those who spearheaded the opening of the formal investigation procedure, were required also to prove that they were competitors of an actual beneficiary of the scheme at issue examined in the contested decision, the lines would be blurred between the essential and fundamental condition of admissibility for all actions, being the interest in bringing proceedings, which must continue until the case has been closed, and the requirement of locus standi, which are nonetheless distinct conditions which must be satisfied by a natural or legal person cumulatively.

Next, it must be found that the applicant also retains an interest in seeking the annulment of the contested decision in order to prevent its alleged unlawfulness recurring in the future. It should be pointed out in that regard that the alleged unlawfulness is liable to recur in the future notwithstanding the circumstances which gave rise to the present action since it undermines, irrespective of those circumstances, the interpretation of the general conditions for applying the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the temporal scope of the protection which may be granted under that principle

(see paras 22-32)