Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Measures producing binding legal effects - Measure comprising essentially distinct parts

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC, fourth para.)

2. State aid - Prohibition - Derogations - Commission's discretion - Limits - Difference between that discretion and the margin of discretion inherent in the interpretation of a concept in Community legislation

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(3) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3) EC); Directive 92/81, Art. 8(2))

3. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directive 92/81 - Pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products - Concept - Interpretation in the light of distortions of competition which might result from such projects

(Directive 92/81, Art. 8(2)(d))

4. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directive 92/81 - Pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products - Concept

(Directive 92/81, Arts 1(1) and 8(2))

Summary

1. Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), a natural or legal person may contest only measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting that person's interests by bringing about a significant change in his/its legal situation. Consequently, where a measure against which an action for annulment has been brought comprises essentially distinct parts, only those parts of that measure which produce binding legal effects capable of bringing about a significant change in the applicant's legal situation can be challenged.

( see para. 34 )

2. The broad discretion in the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) conferred on the Commission by Article 93 of the Treaty (now Article 88 EC) does not permit it to authorise Member States to derogate from provisions of Community law other than those relating to the application of Article 92(l) of the Treaty.

The margin of discretion which the Commission lawfully intends leaving to the Member States in applying the concept of pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 92/81 must be distinguished from the margin of discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 93 of the Treaty in order to determine to what extent State aid is compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty. Whereas the power conferred on the Commission by Article 93 of the Treaty presupposes that that institution will undertake discretionary appraisals of complex economic and social situations, judicial review of which must be of a limited nature, any appraisal of an application of the provision of Directive 92/81 in question must, in contrast, be guided by a plausible interpretation of the legislative concepts of a vague and indeterminate character used in it, an appraisal which, in the last resort, is a matter for the Community judicature.

Consequently, it is incumbent both on the Commission, when appraising a notified aid scheme, and on the Community judicature before which an action for annulment has been brought to ensure observance of the limits inherent in any contextual and reasonable interpretation of terms used in Community legislation.

( see paras 55-57 )

3. It is clear from the sixth recital to Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils that the whole of Article 8(2) of that directive, including, therefore, the term pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products in subparagraph (d), must be interpreted in the light of the distortions of competition to which the measures applying that provision are capable of giving rise.

In that connection, it is common ground that the closer research and development carried out by an undertaking, in the technological field for example, come to the marketing stage and, consequently, the commercial exploitation of the products concerned, the more likely it is that such activities will have an impact on competition. It is also common ground that pilot or demonstration projects usually represent the last stage of research and development before industrial exploitation on a larger scale of the results of such research.

The Commission must therefore interpret the term pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products not only in a textual and restrictive manner but also in a manner which takes particular account of the proximity of the programme for exemption from customs duties examined by it to its possible subsequent commercial exploitation.

Moreover, the need for consistent application of all Community legislation means that the Community Framework for State Aid for Research and Development is one of the factors on which the Community judicature may rely in determining the scope to be attributed to the term.

( see paras 62-64, 66 )

4. A scheme notified as a programme intended to demonstrate the economic and industrial viability of a biofuel sector does not constitute a pilot project for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products within the meaning of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, where that scheme is designed essentially not to demonstrate the technical or technological feasibility of producing biofuels but rather to evaluate the economic performance and industrial capacity of the existing biofuel production plants.

( see para. 69 )