Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid — Prohibited — Derogations — Aid for areas affected by the division of Germany — Scope of the derogation — Strict interpretation — Economic disadvantages caused by the isolation created by the frontier established between the two zones — (Art. 92(1) and (2)(c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) and (2)(c) EC)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision consistent with previous decisions — Permissibility of summary statement of reasons — (Art. 190 of the EC Treaty (now Art. 253 EC))

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal — Inadmissible — (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts. 42(2) and 118)

4. State aid — Prohibited — Derogations — Aid which may be regarded as compatible with the common market — Aid to remedy serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Strict interpretation — Disturbance affecting the whole of the economy of the Member State concerned — (Art. 92(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3)(a), (b) and (c) EC))

5. Appeals — Grounds — Plea challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs — Inadmissible where all other pleas rejected — (Statute of the Court, Art. 51, second para.)

Summary

1. Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(2)(c) EC), under which ‘aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division’, is compatible with the common market, was not repealed either by the Treaty on European Union or by the Treaty of Amsterdam. In those circumstances, in the light of the objective scope of the rules of Community law, the authority and effectiveness of which must be safeguarded, it cannot be presumed that that provision has been devoid of purpose since the reunification of Germany.

Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty must, as a derogation from the principle that State aid is incompatible with the common market, be interpreted strictly. The economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany can only mean the economic disadvantages caused in certain areas of Germany by the isolation which the establishment of a physical frontier entailed, such as the breaking of communication links or the loss of markets as a result of the breaking-off of commercial relations between the two parts of German territory.

That provision cannot, on the other hand, without disregarding its nature as a derogation and its context and aims, be interpreted as permitting full compensation for the undeniable economic backwardness of the new Länder , a backwardness which is attributable to the outcome of the specific economic policy choices made by the German Democratic Republic.

The economic disadvantages suffered by the new Länder as a whole were not directly caused by the geographical division of Germany within the meaning of Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty. The differences in development between the original and the new Länder are therefore explained by causes other than the geographical rift caused by the division of Germany and in particular by the different politico-economic systems set up in each part of Germany.

Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty is thus not intended to overcome the special situation resulting from the political and economic division of Germany. The consequence of such an interpretation would be that the entire territory of the new Länder could benefit from aid of any kind.

Regions of the former German Democratic Republic can be regarded as having suffered economic disadvantages caused by the geographical division of Germany only if the existence of the politico-economic frontier between the two parts of Germany constituted a barrier to their economic development in a way which distinguished them from the other regions of the former German Democratic Republic.

see paras 23-25, 39-43

2. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question, so as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

Where a decision has been adopted in a context with which the persons concerned are familiar and forms part of a consistent decision-making practice, it can be reasoned in a summary manner.

see paras 76-77

3. Under Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 42(2) of those rules, which prohibits generally the introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the procedure, applies to the procedure before the Court of Justice on appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance. In an appeal, the Court ' s jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the findings on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

see para. 93

4. Article 92(3)(b) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3)(b) EC), unlike subparagraphs (a) and (c) of that paragraph, requires that, for State aid to be capable of being considered compatible with the common market, it must be intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the whole economy of a Member State, not merely that of some regions or areas of that State. As a derogation, Article 92(3)(b) of the Treaty must be interpreted strictly.

see paras 97-98

5. Where all the other pleas put forward in an appeal have been rejected, any plea challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs must be rejected as inadmissible by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, which provides that no appeal shall lie regarding only the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them.

see para. 124