Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Arts 88(2) and (3), EC and 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(h))

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Misassessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225(1), second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

3. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Discretion of the Commission – Possibility of adopting guidelines

(Art. 87(3), EC; Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects)

4. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the need to supplement the information before it – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64)

Summary

1. In the context of supervision of State aid under Article 88 EC, where, without initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Commission finds on the basis of Article 88(3) EC that an aid is compatible with the common market, the persons intended to benefit from the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature. Therefore, where, by an action for annulment of a Commission decision taken at the end of a preliminary examination, an applicant seeks to secure compliance with the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC, the mere fact that it has the status of a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of that provision is sufficient for it to be regarded as directly and individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

The ‘parties concerned’ are any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations.

When examining the admissibility of an action before the Court of First Instance, that court, after establishing that the applicant can be considered an ‘interested party’ in terms of Article 88(2) EC and Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999, is not required to demand in addition proof that that party’s position on the market is substantially affected by the adoption of the contested decision.

(see paras 37-40, 43-44)

2. In the context of an appeal, the assessment of the facts by the Court of First Instance is subject to review by the Court of Justice only where the facts and evidence put before the Court of First Instance have been distorted.

(see paras 47-49)

3. In adopting rules of conduct and, by publishing them, announcing that they will henceforth apply to the cases to which they relate, the Commission imposes a limit on the exercise of its discretion under Article 87(3) EC and cannot depart from those rules under pain of being found, where appropriate, to be in breach of general principles of law, such as equal treatment or the protection of legitimate expectations.

In the specific area of State aid, the Commission is bound by the guidelines and notices that it issues, inasmuch as they do not depart from the rules in the Treaty – since the texts cannot be interpreted in a way which reduces the scope of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC or which contravenes the aims of those articles – and are accepted by the Member States. It is for the Court of First Instance to verify whether the Commission has observed those rules. In determining whether aid within the multisectoral framework and regional aid for large investment projects is compatible with the common market, the Court of First Instance does not disregard the Commission’s broad discretion if it reviews whether the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, complied with that framework, and if it ascertains whether the Commission took account, when determining the applicable adjustment factor, of whether that aid was intended for a declining market. The Court of First Instance is also justified in holding that the multisectoral framework should be interpreted in the light of Article 87 EC and of the principle of incompatibility of public aid set out therein, in order to attain the objective sought by that provision, namely undistorted competition in the common market.

(see paras 59-74)

4. As regards the assessment by the Court of First Instance of applications made by a party for measures of organisation of the procedure or enquiry, the Court of First Instance is the sole judge of any need to supplement the information available to it in respect of the cases before it. The sufficiency of the evidence before it is a matter to be appraised by it alone and is not subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal, except where that evidence has been distorted or the inaccuracy of the findings of the Court of First Instance is apparent from the documents in the case-file.

(see para. 78)