CELEX: 62006TJ0050(01)
Language: en
Date: 2012-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 21 March 2012.#Ireland and Others v European Commission.#State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duty on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Whether the exemption complies with a Council decision of authorisation under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 — Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures — Legal certainty — Sound administration.#Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T‑62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV.

Reports of Cases
             JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
                                                         21 March 2012 *
       (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duty on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for
       alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Whether the exemption complies with a
      Council decision of authorisation under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 — Presumption of legality
              attaching to European Union measures — Legal certainty — Sound administration)
   In Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV,
   Ireland, represented initially by D. O’Hagan and subsequently by E. Creedon, acting as Agents, and
   P. McGarry, Barrister,
                                                                                  applicant in Case T-50/06 RENV,
   French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents,
                                                                                  applicant in Case T-56/06 RENV,
   Italian Republic, represented by G. Aiello, G. De Bellis and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato,
                                                                                  applicant in Case T-60/06 RENV,
   Eurallumina SpA, established in Portoscuso (Italy), represented by R. Denton and L. Martin Alegi,
   Solicitors,
                                                                                  applicant in Case T-62/06 RENV,
   Aughinish Alumina Ltd,                  established    in Askeaton    (Ireland),  represented   by  J.   Handoll
   and C. Waterson, Solicitors,
                                                                                  applicant in Case T-69/06 RENV,
   v
   European Commission, represented by V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as
   Agents,
                                                                                                          defendant,
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning
   the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in
   the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006
   L 119, p. 12),
   * Languages of the case: English, French and Italian.
EN
          ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                      1
 ---pagebreak---        JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                           IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
                    THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
  composed of I. Pelikánová (Rapporteur), President, V. Vadapalas, K. Jürimäe, K. O’Higgins and M. van
  der Woude, Judges,
  Registrar: N. Rosner, Administrator,
  having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 September 2011,
  gives the following
                                                        Judgment
  Background to the dispute
  Alumina
1 Alumina (or aluminium oxide) is a white powder principally used in smelters to produce aluminium. It
  is produced out of bauxite ore by a refining process, the last step of which consists in calcination. More
  than 90% of the calcinated alumina is used in the smelting of aluminium metal. The remainder is
  further processed and used in chemical applications. There are two separate product markets:
  smelter-grade alumina and chemical-grade alumina. Mineral oil may be used as fuel for alumina
  production.
2 There is only one producer of alumina in Ireland, in Italy and in France. These are, respectively,
  Aughinish Alumina Ltd (‘AAL’), established in the Shannon region, Eurallumina SpA, established in
  Sardinia, and Alcan Inc, established in the Gardanne region. Alumina producers are also present in
  Germany, Spain, Greece, Hungary and the United Kingdom.
  Directives on excise duties on mineral oils
3 Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise
  duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) sets out the rules on excise duties on mineral oils.
4 Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 92/81 provides that Member States are to impose a harmonised excise
  duty on mineral oils in accordance with the Directive and are to fix their rates in accordance with
  Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on mineral
  oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 19).
5 Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 empowers the Council to authorise any Member State to introduce
  exemptions from harmonised excise duty other than those expressly provided for in that directive. It
  is worded as follows:
  ‘The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorize any Member
  State to introduce further exemptions or reductions for specific policy considerations.
  A Member State wishing to introduce such a measure shall inform the Commission accordingly and
  shall also provide the Commission with all relevant and necessary information. The Commission shall
  inform the other Member States of the proposed measures within one month.
  2                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   The Council shall be deemed to have authorised the exemption or reduction proposed if, within two
   months of the other Member States’ being informed as laid down in the second subparagraph, neither
   the Commission nor any Member State has requested that the matter be considered by the Council.’
6  Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81 provides as follows:
   ‘If the Commission considers that the exemptions or reductions provided for in paragraph 4 are no
   longer sustainable, particularly in terms of fair competition or distortion of the operation of the
   internal market, or Community policy in the areas of protection of the environment, it shall submit
   appropriate proposals to the Council. The Council shall take a unanimous decision on these
   proposals.’
7  Article 6 of Directive 92/82 fixed the minimum rate of excise duty on heavy fuel oil which the Member
   States were to apply as from 1 January 1993 at EUR 13 per 1 000 kg.
8  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the
   taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) repealed Directives 92/81 and 92/82
   with effect from 31 December 2003.
9  The second indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96 states that the directive is not to apply to the
   dual use of energy products. According to that provision, an energy product has a dual use when it is
   used both as heating fuel and for purposes other than as motor fuel and heating fuel. The use of
   energy products for chemical reduction and in electrolytic and metallurgical processes is to be
   regarded as dual use. Thus, since 1 January 2004 there is no longer a minimum rate of excise duty on
   heavy fuel oil used for alumina production.
10 Moreover, Article 18(1) of Directive 2003/96 provides that, subject to a prior review by the Council, on
   the basis of a proposal from the Commission of the European Communities, the Member States are
   authorised to continue to apply the reductions in the levels of taxation or exemptions set out in
   Annex II until 31 December 2006. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Annex II refer, inter alia, to the exemption
   from excise duty on heavy fuel oil used as fuel for alumina production in the region of Gardanne
   (France), the region of Shannon (Ireland) and in Sardinia (Italy) respectively.
   Council decisions adopted on the basis of Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81
11 Ireland, the Italian Republic and the French Republic have exempted mineral oils used in alumina
   production from excise duty since 1983, 1993 and 1997 respectively (‘the Irish exemption’, the ‘Italian
   exemption’ and ‘the French exemption’ or, collectively, ‘the exemptions at issue’).
12 The Irish exemption was introduced into Irish law by Statutory Instrument No 126/1983, Imposition
   of Duties (No 265) (Excise Duty on Hydrocarbon Oils) Order, 1983, of 12 May 1983. It was
   subsequently included in Section 100(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 1999. Its application to the Shannon
   region was authorised by Council Decision 92/510/EEC of 19 October 1992 authorising Member
   States to continue to apply existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in
   accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 16)
   to certain mineral oils, when used for specific purposes. That authorisation was reviewed and
   extended by the Council until 31 December 1998 by Council Decision 97/425/EC of 30 June 1997
   authorising Member States to apply or to continue to apply to certain mineral oils, when used for
   specific purposes, existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in accordance
   with the procedure provided for in Directive 92/81 (OJ 1997 L 182, p. 22). It was further extended by
   the Council until 31 December 2000 by Council Decision 1999/880/EC of 17 December 1999
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                   3
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   authorising Member States to apply or to continue to apply existing reduced rates of excise duty or
   exemptions from excise duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Directive 92/81 (OJ
   1999 L 331, p. 73) to certain mineral oils, when used for specific purposes.
13 The Italian exemption was introduced into Italian law by decreto legislativo 26 ottobre 1995 n° 504,
   Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative concernenti le imposte sulla produzione e sui consumi e
   relative sanzioni penali e amministrative (Legislative Decree No 504 of 26 October 1995, Consolidated
   Text of Legislative Provisions relating to duties on production and consumption and related criminal
   and administrative penalties) (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 279 of 29 November 1995). Its
   application to Sardinia was authorised until 31 December 1994 by Council Decision 93/697/EC of
   13 December 1993 authorising certain Member States to apply or to continue to apply reduced rates
   of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in
   Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 (OJ 1993 L 321, p. 29) to certain mineral oils, when used for specific
   purposes. That authorisation was first extended by the Council, until 31 December 1996, by Council
   Decision 96/273/EC of 22 April 1996 authorising certain Member States to apply or to continue to
   apply to certain mineral oils, when used for specific purposes, reduced rates of excise duty or
   exemptions from excise duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 8(4) of
   Directive 92/81 (OJ 1996 L 102, p. 40). It was extended a second time by the Council until
   31 December 1998 by Decision 97/425. The authorisation was extended a third time by the Council,
   until 31 December 1999, by Council Decision 1999/255/EC of 30 March 1999 authorising, in
   accordance with Directive 92/81, certain Member States to apply or to continue to apply reduced
   rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, and amending Decision 97/425 (OJ 1999 L 99,
   p. 26) to certain mineral oils. It was extended a fourth time by the Council, until 31 December 2000,
   by Decision 1999/880.
14 The French exemption was introduced into French law by Article 6 of the loi de finances rectificative
   pour 1997 n° 97-1239 (Amending Finance Law for 1997 No 97-1239) of 29 December 1997 (JORF,
   30 December 1997, p. 19101). Its application to the Garonne region was authorised until
   31 December 1998 by Council Decision 97/425. That authorisation was extended for the first time by
   the Council, until 31 December 1999, by Decision 1999/255. It was extended a second time by the
   Council, until 31 December 2000, by Decision 1999/880.
15 Council Decision 2001/224/EC of 12 March 2001 concerning reduced rates of excise duty and
   exemptions from such duty on certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ 2001 L 84,
   p. 23), that is, the last Council decision concerning the exemptions at issue, extended the
   authorisation to be applied to the exemptions until 31 December 2006. Recital 5 in the preamble
   thereto states that the decision is to be ‘without prejudice to the outcome of any procedures relating
   to distortions of the operation of the single market that may be undertaken, in particular under
   Articles 87 [EC] and 88 [EC]’ and that ‘[i]t does not override the requirement for Member States to
   notify instances of potential State aid to the Commission under Article 88 [EC]’.
   Administrative procedure
16 By letter of 28 January 1983, Ireland informed the Commission that it was planning to implement for
   the benefit of AAL an undertaking, given in April 1970 to the investors in a project for the extraction
   of alumina from bauxite in the Shannon estuary, relating to an exemption from excise duty on heavy
   fuel oil used in alumina production. By letter of 22 March 1983, the Commission indicated that the
   exemption constituted State aid which must be notified. It also stated that if the aid was only then to
   be implemented, the Commission could regard the letter of 28 January 1983 as a notification for the
   purpose of Article 93(3) of the EEC Treaty. By letter of 6 May 1983, Ireland requested the
   Commission to consider the letter as such. No decision was adopted by the Commission further to that
   correspondence.
   4                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
17 By letters of 29 May and 2 June 1998, the Commission requested information from the Italian Republic
   and the French Republic respectively in order to verify whether the Italian exemption and the French
   exemption fell within the scope of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC. Following a reminder from the
   Commission of 16 June 1998, the Italian Republic replied on 20 July 1998. Having requested an
   extension of the period of time for reply on 10 July 1998, which was granted on 24 July 1998, the
   French Republic responded by letter of 7 August 1998.
18 By letters of 17 July 2000, the Commission requested the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian
   Republic to notify to it the exemptions at issue. The French authorities replied by letter of
   4 September 2000. By letters of 27 September 2000, the Commission repeated its request to Ireland
   and the Italian Republic and sought further information from them and also from the French
   Republic. The Irish authorities replied to that request by letter of 18 October 2000. Following a
   reminder sent by the Commission on 20 November 2000, the Italian and French authorities also
   replied on 7 and 8 December 2000 respectively.
19 By Decisions C(2001) 3296, C(2001) 3300 and C(2001) 3295 of 30 October 2001, the Commission
   initiated the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC with regard to the Irish
   exemption, the Italian exemption and the French exemption respectively. Those decisions were
   notified to Ireland, the Italian Republic and the French Republic by letters of 5 November 2001 and
   were published on 2 February 2002 in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ 2002
   C 30, pp. 17, 21 and 25).
20 The Commission received comments from AAL, Eurallumina, Alcan and the Association européenne
   de l’aluminium. The comments were communicated to Ireland, the Italian Republic and the French
   Republic on 26 March 2002.
21 Having requested an extension of the time-limit for response by fax of 1 December 2001, which was
   granted on 7 December 2001, Ireland submitted its comments by letter of 8 January 2002. By letter of
   18 February 2002, the Commission requested Ireland to submit to it proof that it had given a binding
   undertaking in respect of AAL prior to its accession. Ireland complied with that request by letter of
   26 April 2002. The Italian Republic submitted its comments by letter of 6 February 2002. After
   requesting an extension of the time-limit for responding by letter of 21 November 2001, granted on
   29 November 2001, the French Republic submitted its comments by letter of 12 February 2002.
   The contested decision
22 On 7 December 2005, the Commission adopted Decision 2006/323/EC concerning the exemption from
   excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region
   and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) (‘the
   contested decision’).
23 The contested decision relates to the period prior to 1 January 2004, when Directive 2003/96 became
   applicable. It nevertheless extended the formal investigation procedure to the period after 1 January
   2004.
24 The enacting terms of the contested decision are worded as follows:
   ‘Article 1
   The exemptions from excise duty granted by France, Ireland and Italy in respect of heavy fuel oils used
   in the production of alumina until 31 December 2003 constitute State aid within the meaning of
   Article 87(1) [EC].
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                  5
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   Article 2
   Aid granted between 17 July 1990 and 2 February 2002, to the extent that it is incompatible with the
   common market, shall not be recovered as this would be contrary to the general principles of
   Community law.
   Article 3
   The aid referred to in Article 1 granted between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003 is compatible
   with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) [EC] in so far as the beneficiaries pay at
   least a rate of EUR 13,01 per 1000 kg of heavy fuel oils.
   Article 4
   The aid … granted between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003 is incompatible with the common
   market within the meaning of Article 87(3) [EC] insofar as the beneficiaries did not pay a rate of
   EUR 13,01 per 1000 kg of heavy fuel oils.
   Article 5
   1. France, Ireland and Italy shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the
   incompatible aid referred to in Article 4.
   …
   5. France, Ireland and Italy shall order, within two months of the date of notification of this Decision,
   the beneficiaries of the incompatible aid referred to in Article 4 to repay the aid unlawfully granted
   plus interest.’
   Proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice
25 By applications lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 16 February 2006 (Case T-60/06),
   17 February 2006 (Cases T-50/06 and T-56/06) and 23 February 2006 (Cases T-62/06 and T-69/06)
   respectively, the applicants, namely the Italian Republic, Ireland, the French Republic, Eurallumina and
   AAL, brought the present actions for annulment in full or in part of the contested decision.
26 By separate document, received at the Registry of the General Court on 22 March 2006, AAL lodged
   an application for interim measures under Article 242 EC, seeking suspension of the operation of the
   contested decision in so far as it was concerned. By order of 2 August 2006 in Case T-69/06 R
   Aughinish Alumina v Commission, not published in the ECR, the President of the General Court
   rejected that application and ordered that the costs be reserved.
27 Pursuant to Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and acting on a proposal from
   the Second Chamber, the General Court decided, after the parties had been heard in accordance with
   Article 51 of those rules, to refer the present cases to a Chamber sitting in extended composition.
28 By order of 24 May 2007, the President of the Second Extended Chamber of the General Court
   decided, having heard the parties, to join the present cases for the purposes of the oral procedure, in
   accordance with Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure.
29 By judgment of 12 December 2007 in Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06
   Ireland and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, the General Court joined the present
   cases for the purposes of the judgment. It annulled the contested decision on the ground that, in that
   6                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   decision, the Commission had failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons imposed on it by
   Article 253 EC with regard to the non-application in the present cases of Article 1(b)(v) of Council
   Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
   Article [88] EC (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1). Moreover, in Case T-62/06 the General Court rejected the action
   as to the remainder, having ruled inadmissible the heads of claim by which Eurallumina requested that
   the Court should either: (i) make a declaration to the effect that the Italian exemption authorised by
   Decision 2001/224 was lawful until 31 December 2006 and that all the sums forgone or to be forgone
   by the Italian Republic up to that date, or least until 31 December 2003, were not to be regarded as
   unlawful State aid or not to be recovered; or (ii) amend Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision.
30 By application filed on 26 February 2008, the Commission lodged an appeal against the judgment of
   the General Court.
31 By its judgment on appeal in Case C-89/08 P Commission v Ireland and Others [2009] ECR I-11245,
   the Court of Justice set aside the judgment in Ireland and Others v Commission, paragraph 29 above,
   in so far as that judgment had annulled the contested decision on the ground that, in the decision,
   the Commission had failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons with regard to the non-application
   in the present cases of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 659/1999 and had ordered the Commission to
   bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs, including those relating to the proceedings for
   interim measures in Case T-69/06 R. It also referred Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06
   and T-69/06 back to the General Court and ordered that the costs be reserved.
32 Following the judgment referring the cases back to the General Cour and pursuant to Article 118(1) of
   the Rules of Procedure, the present cases were assigned to the Second Chamber, Extended
   Composition, by decision of the President of the General Court of 18 December 2009.
33 In accordance with Article 119(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties lodged their statements of
   written observations on 1 February 2010 for Ireland in Case T-56/06 RENV, 4 February 2010 for the
   Italian Republic in Case T-60/06 RENV, 12 February 2010 for Eurallumina in Case T-62/06 RENV,
   16 February 2010 for the French Republic in Case T-56/06 RENV and for AAL in Case
   T-69/06 RENV, respectively, and 28 April 2010 for the Commission in respect of all the present cases.
   In its statement of written observations, the French Republic stated, in the light of the position adopted
   by the Court of Justice in its judgment referring the case back, that it was abandoning one of the pleas
   relied on in its application, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.
34 By order of 1 March 2010 of the President of the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, the present
   cases were joined for the purposes of the written procedure, the oral procedure and the judgment.
35 After a change in the composition of the Chambers of the General Court, the Judge-Rapporteur was
   assigned to the Fourth Chamber and the present cases were then assigned to the Fourth Chamber,
   Extended Composition, by decision of 20 September 2010.
36 On hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court decided to open the oral procedure and, by
   way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure,
   invited the parties and the Council of the European Union to reply to certain questions. The parties
   and the Council complied with that request within the period prescribed.
37 The parties presented oral argument and replied to the Court’s questions at the hearing on
   14 September 2011.
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                  7
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   Forms of order sought by the parties in the proceedings after referral back to the General Court
38 In Case T-50/06 RENV, Ireland claims that the Court should:
   — annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the Irish exemption;
   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
39 In case T-69/06 RENV, AAL claims that the Court should:
   — annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to AAL;
   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
40 In Case T-60/06 RENV, the Italian Republic claims, in essence, that the Court should:
   — annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the Italian exemption;
   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
41 In Case T-62/06 RENV, Eurallumina claims, in essence, that the Court should:
   — annul the contested decision in its entirety or Articles 1 and 4 to 6 thereof or, in the alternative,
       Articles 5 and 6 of the decision, in so far as that decision or those provisions relate to
       Eurallumina;
   and/or
   — declare that the Italian exemption, authorised by Decision 2001/224, is lawful until 31 December
       2006 and that any sums forgone or to be forgone by the Italian Republic are not to be considered
       as unlawful State aid, or at least not recovered;
   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
42 In Case T-56/06 RENV, the French Republic claims, in essence, that the Court should:
   — annul the contested decision in its entirety or, in the alternative, Article 5 of the decision, in so far
       as that decision or that provision relates to the French exemption;
   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
43 In the present cases, the Commission contends that the Court should:
   — dismiss the applications;
   — order the applicants to pay the costs.
   8                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   Law
   Eurallumina’s heads of claim seeking certain declaratory relief from the Court
44 It is no longer necessary to consider Eurallumina’s heads of claim seeking a declaration by the General
   Court to the effect that the Italian exemption authorised by Decision 2001/224 is lawful until
   31 December 2006 and that all sums forgone or to be forgone by the Italian Republic should not be
   considered as unlawful State aid or, at least, not recovered. Those heads of claim have already been
   rejected as inadmissible by the judgment in Ireland and Others v Commission cited in paragraph 29
   above. Since the parts of that judgment dealing with that point were not set aside in Commission v
   Ireland and Others cited at paragraph 31 above, they have acquired the force of res judicata.
   Summary of the pleas and grounds of complaint raised by the applicants
45 In support of their claims for annulment, the applicants rely, in essence, on a series of pleas and
   grounds of complaint which overlap to a certain extent, even though their purpose is formally
   different, since each of the applicants challenges the contested decision only in so far as, with regard
   to the Italian Republic (Case T-60/06 RENV) and Eurallumina (Case T-62/02 RENV), it relates to the
   Italian exemption, with regard to Ireland (Case T-50/06 RENV) and AAL (Case T-69/06 RENV), it
   relates to the Irish exemption, and, with regard to the French Republic (Case T-56/06 RENV), it
   relates to the French exemption. Those pleas and grounds of complaint allege breach of the principle
   of legal certainty, the principle of the presumption of legality and effectiveness attaching to European
   Union measures, the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali, the principle of sound
   administration, the principle of estoppel, the principle that decisions must be adopted within a
   reasonable time, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, as well as infringement of
   Article 3(1)(m) EC, Article 87(1) and (3) EC, Article 88 EC and Article 157 EC, of the rules codified in
   Article (1)(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) of Regulation No 659/1999, of Article 14(1) and Articles 17 to 19 of that
   regulation, Article 18 of Directive 2003/96, read in conjunction with the provisions of Annex II thereto,
   the rules for environmental protection aid, in particular paragraph 82(a) of the Community guidelines
   on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3), and the Guidelines on national regional
   aid (OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9), as well as breach of the obligation to state reasons.
46 First, it should be noted that the pleas and grounds of complaint raised by the applicants are directed
   inter alia at the result at which the Commission arrived in the contested decision by applying the rules
   on State aid to the exemptions at issue. The applicants submit, in essence, that that result could not
   lawfully counteract the legal effects produced by the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most
   recently by Decision 2001/224. That applies to the contested decision, which finds, or is based on the
   finding, that the exemptions at issue granted by the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic
   until 31 December 2003 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and orders the
   recovery of such aid from the beneficiaries to the extent that it is incompatible with the common
   market, even though the Council had authorised the Member States concerned to apply those
   exemptions until 31 December 2006. Moreover, AAL argues that the application of the rules on State
   aid cannot, as a matter of law, lead in the present case to a result which is contrary to the aim pursued
   by Article 3(1)(m) EC and Article 157 EC, namely the safeguarding and strengthening of the
   competitiveness of European Union industry. Instead, the contested decision weakens the competitive
   position of European Union industry at international level.
47 Second, the pleas and grounds of complaint raised by the Italian Republic, the French Republic and
   AAL are directed inter alia against the contested decision in so far as it classifies, or is based on the
   Commission’s classification of, the exemptions at issue granted until 31 December 2003 as State aid
   within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                   9
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
48 Third, the pleas and grounds of complaint raised by the Italian Republic, Ireland and AAL are directed
   against the contested decision in particular in so far as it classifies, or is based on the Commission’s
   classification of, the Italian exemption and the Irish exemption granted until 31 December 2003 —
   with the exception, as regards the latter, of the period before 17 July 1990 — as new aid, as opposed
   to existing aid within the meaning of Article 88 EC.
49 Fourth, the pleas and grounds of complaint raised by the Italian Republic are directed against the
   contested decision in particular in so far as it finds that the State aid purportedly granted until
   31 December 2003 on the basis of the Italian exemption cannot be deemed compatible with the
   common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) EC on the ground that that aid was closely
   linked to Eurallumina’s attainment of environmental protection objectives or that it facilitated
   economic development in Sardinia.
50 Fifth, the pleas and grounds of complaint relied on by the applicants are directed against the contested
   decision in particular in so far as it orders the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian Republic to
   recover from the beneficiaries the State aid purportedly granted until 31 December 2003 on the basis
   of the exemptions at issue.
51 In the present case, it is appropriate to examine, first of all, the pleas and grounds of complaint raised
   by the applicants which allege, in essence, the unlawful application of the rules on State aid to the
   exemptions at issue granted by the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic until
   31 December 2003 on the basis of and in conformity with the Council’s decisions of authorisation,
   most recently Decision 2001/224.
   The pleas and grounds of complaint alleging unlawful application of the rules on State aid to the
   exemptions granted on the basis of the Council’s decisions of authorisation and in conformity with
   those decisions
52 In Case T-50/06 RENV, in its second and fourth pleas, Ireland submits that, in the contested decision,
   the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty and the principle of estoppel in concluding
   that the Irish exemption granted until 31 December 2003 was partially incompatible with the common
   market, in the light of the rules on State aid, even though that exemption had been granted on the
   basis of the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, and in conformity
   with those decisions. It observes that the Commission has never disputed the legality of the Council’s
   decisions authorising the exemptions. Moreover, by its fourth plea, Ireland claims, in particular, that
   the Commission infringed the principle of estoppel in the contested decision in that it applied the
   rules on State aid to the Irish exemption too long after the date on which it became aware of the aid
   purportedly granted on the basis of that exemption.
53 In Case T-56/06 RENV, in its second plea, the French Republic complains that the Commission
   infringed the principle of legal certainty in the contested decision in that it ordered the recovery of
   the aid purportedly granted between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003 on the basis of the
   French exemption, even though it had been authorised to apply that exemption by the Council’s
   decisions of authorisation, most recently by Decision 2001/224.
54 In Case T-60/06 RENV, in its sixth plea, the Italian Republic claims that, in the contested decision, the
   Commission infringed inter alia the principle of the presumption of legality attaching to European
   Union measures in that it ordered the recovery of the aid purportedly granted between 3 February
   2002 and 31 December 2003 on the basis of the Italian exemption, even though it had been
   authorised to apply that exemption by the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently by
   Decision 2001/224.
   10                                                                                                  ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
55 In Case T-62/06 RENV, in its second plea, Eurallumina complains that, in the contested decision, the
   Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty, the principle of the presumption of legality and
   effectiveness attaching to European Union measures and the principle of lex specialis derogat legi
   generali in that it concluded that the Italian exemption granted until 31 December 2003 was partially
   incompatible with the common market, in the light of the rules on State aid, even though that
   exemption was granted on the basis of the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently by
   Decision 2001/224, and in conformity with those decisions. Moreover, in its third plea, Eurallumina
   submits that the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration in the contested
   decision in that it ordered the recovery of the aid purportedly granted between 3 February 2002 and
   31 December 2003 on the basis of the Italian exemption without taking account of the fact that the
   Italian Republic had been authorised to apply that exemption by the Council’s decisions of
   authorisation, most recently by Decision 2001/224.
56 In Case T-69/06 RENV, in its second plea, AAL complains, in particular, that the Commission
   infringed the principle of legal certainty, the principle of the effectiveness of European Union
   measures and the principle lex specialis derogat legi generali and also exceeded its powers in the
   contested decision in that it concluded that the Irish exemption granted until 31 December 2003 was
   partially incompatible with the common market in the light of the rules on State aid, even though
   that exemption had been granted on the basis of the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most
   recently by Decision 2001/224, and in conformity with those decisions. Moreover, in its fifth plea,
   AAL submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty,
   the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time and the principle of sound
   administration in so far as it applied the rules on State aid to the Irish exemption too long after the
   date on which it became aware of that exemption. Lastly, in its fourth plea, AAL contends that the
   Commission infringed, in particular, the principle of legal certainty by adopting the contested
   decision, in which it ordered the recovery of the aid which was purportedly granted to it between
   3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003 on the basis of the Irish exemption, even though Ireland had
   been authorised to apply that exemption by the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently by
   Decision 2001/224.
57 In Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV, the
   Commission disputes all the arguments put forward by the applicants and contends that the Court
   should reject the pleas and grounds of complaint which allege that, in the contested decision, it
   unlawfully applied the rules on State aid to the exemptions granted on the basis of the Council’s
   decisions of authorisation and in conformity with those decisions.
58 In accordance with the principle of procedural economy, it is appropriate to examine, first, the pleas
   and grounds of complaint alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and/or the principle
   of the presumption of lawfulness attaching to European Union measures. By those pleas and grounds,
   the applicants essentially complain that, in the contested decision, by deciding that the exemptions at
   issue granted by the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic until 31 December 2003
   constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and ordering that the aid be recovered
   from the beneficiaries to the extent that it is incompatible with common market, the Commission
   partially nullified the legal effects produced by the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently
   Decision 2001/224, which authorised the Member States concerned to apply those exemptions until
   31 December 2006.
59 It should be noted in that regard that acts of the institutions of the European Union are in principle
   presumed to be lawful and, accordingly, produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn,
   annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling
   or a plea of illegality (see, Case C-475/01 Commission v Greece [2004] ECR I-8923, paragraph 18 and
   case-law cited).
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                  11
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
60 By way of exception to that principle, measures tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious
   that it cannot be tolerated by the European Union legal order must be treated as having no legal
   effect, even provisional, that is to say, they must be regarded as legally non-existent. The purpose of
   this exception is to maintain a balance between two fundamental, but sometimes conflicting,
   requirements with which a legal order must comply, namely, stability of legal relations and respect for
   legality (see Commission v Greece, paragraph 59 above, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
61 The gravity of the consequences attaching to a finding that a measure of a Community institution is
   non-existent presupposes that, for reasons of legal certainty, such a finding be reserved for quite
   extreme situations (see Commission v Greece, paragraph 59 above, paragraph 20 and the case-law
   cited).
62 It is also settled case-law that the principle of legal certainty aims to ensure that situations and legal
   relationships governed by European Union law remain foreseeable (Case C-305/00 Schulin [2003] ECR
   I-3525, paragraph 58, and Case C-199/03 Ireland v Commission [2005] ECR I-8027, paragraph 69). To
   that end, it is essential that the European Union institutions observe the principle that they may not
   alter measures which they have adopted and which affect the legal and factual situation of persons, so
   that they may amend such acts only in accordance with the rules on competence and procedure (see
   Case T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [1997] ECR II-1689, paragraph 113 and the case-law
   cited). However, breach of the principle of legal certainty cannot effectively be pleaded if the person
   whose legal and substantive position was affected by the decision in question did not observe the
   conditions laid down in that decision (see Case T-37/97 Forges de Clabecq v Commission [1999] ECR
   II-859, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited). Respect for the principle of legal certainty also requires
   that the institutions of the European Union must, as a matter of principle, avoid inconsistencies that
   might arise in the implementation of the various provisions of European Union law. This is all the
   more necessary when those provisions pursue the same objective, such as undistorted competition in
   the common market (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case C-225/91 Matra v Commission [1993]
   ECR I-3203, paragraphs 41 and 42, and Case T-156/98 RJB Mining v Commission [2001] ECR II-337,
   paragraph 112 and the case-law cited).
63 Moreover, in so far as the pleas and grounds of complaint under consideration raise the question of
   the relationship between the rules governing the harmonisation of fiscal legislation, including the rules
   on excise duties, and the rules on State aid, the following matters should be noted.
64 At the material time, Article 2 EC provided, inter alia, that the Community’s task was to be achieved
   ‘by establishing a common market’. For the purposes set out in Article 2 EC, Article 3(1)(c) and (g)
   EC provided that the activities of the Community were to include, as provided in the EC Treaty and
   in accordance with the timetable set out therein, ‘an internal market characterised by the abolition, as
   between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital’ and
   ‘a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted’.
65 The EC Treaty empowered the Community to take measures to eliminate various types of distortion
   that harmed the proper functioning of the internal market.
66 The purpose of Article 93 EC is to reduce obstacles to trade resulting from differences between
   domestic systems of taxation, even when they are applied in a non-discriminatory manner (Case
   171/78 Commission v Denmark [1980] ECR 447, paragraph 20). In the version in force at the material
   time, it provided that ‘[t]he Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after
   consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, [was to] adopt
   provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other
   forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation [was] necessary to ensure the
   establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in
   Article 14’. Thus, under Article 93 EC, the Council was empowered to harmonise domestic legislation
   12                                                                                                  ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   on excise duty to the extent necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal
   market (see, to that effect, Case C-166/98 Socridis [1999] ECR I-3791, paragraph 25, and the Opinion
   of Advocate General Mischo in that case, ECR I-3793, paragraph 53).
67 It is clear from the preamble to and Article 1(1) of Directive 92/81, adopted on the basis of Article 93
   EC, that the directive is intended, through harmonisation of excise duties on mineral oils, to give effect
   to the free movement of the products concerned and thereby promote the proper functioning of the
   internal market (Case T-184/97 BP Chemicals v Commission [2000] ECR II-3145, paragraph 61).
68 Moreover, it is apparent from the sixth recital and Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 that, in the areas
   covered by the harmonisation of excise duties on mineral oils, further exemptions may not be
   introduced unilaterally by Member States, but require the intervention of the Council, which, acting
   unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise Member States to apply such
   derogations for specific policy considerations if and for so long as that is compatible with the proper
   functioning of the internal market.
69 The sixth recital of Directive 92/81 thus states that ‘it is appropriate to permit Member States to apply
   on an optional basis certain other exemptions or reduced rates within their own territory where this
   does not give rise to distortions of competition’. It is clear from that recital that the whole of
   Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 must be interpreted in the light of the distortions of competition which
   may arise as a result of the measures applying that provision (see, to that effect an by analogy, BP
   Chemicals v Commission, paragraph 67 above, paragraph 62).
70 That is confirmed by the eighth recital of Directive 92/81, which refers to the need ‘to provide for a
   review procedure for all the exemptions or reduced rates provided for in this Directive in order to
   monitor their continued compatibility with the proper functioning of the internal market’, and by
   Article 8(5) of the directive, which provides that the Council, taking a unanimous decision on a
   proposal from the Commission, is to review its decisions of authorisation if the Commission considers
   that the exemptions or reductions that have been authorised are no longer sustainable, particularly in
   terms of unfair competition or distortion of the operation of the internal market.
71 Distortions of competition deriving from State aid are examined by the Commission under a system of
   prior Commission authorisation, which is subject to review by the European Union courts. Under
   Article 88(3) EC, State aid measures must be notified to the Commission. That procedure applies to
   all State aid, including fiscal aid. Member States may not put their proposed measures into effect
   without the Commission’s prior approval. The Commission’s examination as to compatibility with the
   internal market is based not on the form which such aid may take, but in terms of its effect. The
   principle of incompatibility with the common market set out in Article 87 EC applies to aid ‘in any
   form whatsoever’, including certain fiscal measures. The Commission may decide that the Member
   State concerned must amend or abolish aid which it finds incompatible with the internal market.
   Where the aid has already been implemented in breach of the procedural rules, the Member State
   must in principle recover it from the recipients.
72 It is apparent from paragraphs 64 to 71 above that the rules governing the harmonisation of domestic
   fiscal legislation, including the rules on excise duties, laid down in Article 93 EC and in Directive
   92/81, and the rules on State aid set out in Articles 87 EC to 89 EC pursue the same objective,
   namely to promote the proper functioning of the internal market by combating, especially, distortion
   of competition. In the light of their common objective, and contrary to the view advocated by the
   Commission, in order for those different rules to be implemented consistently, the notion of
   distortion of competition must be regarded as having the same scope and the same meaning with
   regard to both the harmonisation of domestic fiscal legislation and State aid. Moreover, it is clear from
   paragraphs 66 to 70 above that the rules governing the harmonisation of domestic fiscal legislation,
   including the rules on excise duties, laid down in Article 93 EC and in Directive 92/81 expressly
   confer on the European Union institutions — that is to say, the Commission, which submits a
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                   13
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   proposal and the Council, which enacts a measure — the responsibility for assessing whether
   competition may be distorted. The purpose of this is to decide whether or not to authorise a Member
   State to apply, or continue to apply, an exemption from the harmonised excise duty under Article 8(4)
   of Directive 92/81, or whether there may be unfair competition or distortion of the operation of the
   internal market justifying a review of an authorisation already granted under that provision, as
   provided for in Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81. If there is a negative assessment, the Commission must
   propose to the Council that it should not authorise the exemption sought or, where appropriate,
   amend or abolish the authorisation for exemption already granted. If the Council arrives at a different
   assessment, the Commission may have recourse to its powers under Article 230 EC to bring an action
   before the European Union courts for annulment of the Council’s decision to authorise an exemption
   or to maintain an authorisation for exemption already granted so that those courts may review
   whether, from an objective point of view, there is no distortion of competition, unfair competition or
   distortion of the operation of the internal market as a result of such exemption.
73 Lastly, it should be recalled that, according to case-law, the concept of State aid within the meaning of
   Article 87(1) EC corresponds to an objective situation and does not depend on the conduct or
   statements of the institutions (see, to that effect, Commission v Ireland and Others, paragraph 31
   above, paragraph 72). Article 87(1) EC states that any aid granted by a Member State or through State
   resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring
   certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market, in
   so far as it affects trade between Member States. That provision therefore applies to the decisions of
   Member States by which, in pursuit of their own economic and social objectives, they give, by
   unilateral and autonomous decisions, resources to undertakings or other persons or procure for them
   advantages intended to encourage the attainment of the economic or social objectives sought (Case
   61/79 Denkavit italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 31, and Case T-351/02 Deutsche Bahn v
   Commission [2006] ECR I-1047, paragraph 100).
74 Therefore, for advantages to be capable of being categorised as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)
   EC, they must, in particular, be imputable to the State (see Case C-482/99 France v Commission [2002]
   ECR I-4397, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited, and Deutsche Bahn v Commission, paragraph 73
   above, paragraph 101), bearing in mind that the imputability of aid to a State is separate from the
   question whether aid was granted through State resources (see Deutsche Bahn v Commission,
   paragraph 103 and the case-law cited).
75 It is necessary to examine in the light of the rules referred to at paragraphs 59 to 74 above whether, as
   the applicants maintain, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty and the principle of
   the presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures in so far as it nullified certain legal
   effects produced by the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently by Decision 2001/224, by
   applying, in the contested decision, the rules on State aid to the exemptions at issue that were granted
   until 31 December 2003.
76 In the present case, the Commission does not dispute that the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French
   Republic relied on the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently on Decision 2001/224, in
   order to apply or continue to apply the exemptions at issue until 31 December 2003 in Sardinia, the
   Shannon region and the Gardanne region for the benefit of Eurallumina, AAL and Alcan respectively.
   As observed at paragraph 68 above, those decisions were an essential prerequisite for enabling the
   Member States concerned to grant those exemptions lawfully. Moreover, as is clear from recital 99 of
   the contested decision, the Commission accepts that ‘the Member States … were entitled to rely on the
   wording of Decisions 92/510/EEC, 93/697/EC, 96/273/EC, 97/425/EC, 1999/255/EC, 1999/880/EC
   and 2001/224/EC’.
77 The Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, authorised, in clear and
   unambiguous terms, the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic to apply or continue to
   apply exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia,
   14                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   the Shannon region and the Gardanne region respectively, most recently until 31 December 2006,
   subject only to the possibility of prior review by the Council, on the basis of a proposal submitted by
   the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81 (see
   paragraph 6 above). In so far as certain restrictive conditions of a geographical and temporal nature
   were attached to them, those decisions were binding on the Member States concerned, a fact which
   was, moreover, taken into account by the Commission in recitals 17 and 63 of the contested decision.
78 It is not disputed that the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic fully complied with the
   restrictive conditions of a geographical and temporal nature imposed by the Council’s decisions of
   authorisation. They applied or continued to apply the exemptions at issue only in the regions
   indicated in the Council’s decisions of authorisation, that is, in Sardinia, the Shannon region and the
   Gardanne region respectively. Moreover, they granted the exemptions at issue during the period in
   which the Council’s decisions of authorisation produced their effects, namely the period up to
   31 December 2006.
79 The Commission argues that the Council’s decisions of authorisation, although an essential
   prerequisite for enabling the Member States concerned to grant the exemptions at issue, were not in
   themselves sufficient to do so. In its view, those decisions were without prejudice to the fact that, if
   the exemptions at issue constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, they had to be
   notified to the Commission and authorised by it, in accordance with Article 88 EC. It contends that
   the conditional nature of Council decisions of authorisation, as opposed to any subsequent application
   of State aid procedures and rules, is attested by recital 5 of Decision 2001/224, which expressly refers
   to any procedures and Commission decisions under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
80 In that regard it should be noted, first, that, as the Commission itself accepted at recital 97 of the
   contested decision, the Council’s decisions of authorisation prior to Decision 2001/224 ‘[did not]
   mention any possible contradiction with the State aid rules nor did they make any reference to the
   obligation to notify’. The Council cannot therefore be regarded as having expressly made the effects
   produced by those decisions conditional on the requirement that the Member States concerned notify
   the exemptions at issue to the Commission, in accordance with Article 88 EC, and that the
   Commission adopt a decision not to raise any objection or a positive State aid decision.
81 Second, contrary to the Commission’s contention, recital 5 of Decision 2001/224, as partially
   reproduced at paragraph 15 above, cannot be construed as an express manifestation of the Council’s
   intention to make the effects of its authorisation conditional on compliance by the Member States
   concerned with their obligation to notify the exemptions at issue to the Commission, in accordance
   with Article 88 EC, and on the Commission’s adopting a decision not to raise any objections or a
   positive decision in that regard, for the reasons set out below.
82 The principle reason is that the interpretation of recital 5 of Decision 2001/224 advocated by the
   Commission was implicitly but necessarily rebutted by the Council in its reply to the questions put by
   the Court (see paragraph 36 above). Invited to express its view on whether an examination of the
   exemptions at issue in the light of the rules on State aid, resulting, as in the present case, in a final
   negative decision by the Commission, was capable of putting an early end to those exemptions,
   notwithstanding the terms of Article 1 of Decision 2001/224, according to which the Italian Republic,
   Ireland and the French Republic were authorised to continue to apply the exemptions at issue until
   31 December 2006, the Council replied that, in the absence of any action on the part of the
   Commission, either by exercising the powers conferred on it by Article 230 EC or by submitting a
   fresh proposal under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81, as provided for in Article 8(5) thereof, ‘Decision
   2001/224 remained valid and the Member States [concerned] were entitled to rely on its authorisation
   to maintain the contested exemptions’. It is clear from that reply that the Council did not intend make
   the effects of Decision 2001/224 conditional on any subsequent procedures or Commission decisions
   relating to State aid.
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                  15
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
83 In any event, the interpretation advocated by the Commission of recital 5 of Decision 2001/224 and of
   the reference in that recital to any procedures and decisions under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC cannot be
   accepted since it would result, in the circumstances of the present case, in inconsistent implementation
   of the rules governing the harmonisation of fiscal legislation, including the rules on excise duty, and
   the rules on State aid, which would be contrary to the requirements arising from respect for the
   principle of legal certainty (see paragraph 62 above).
84 First, that interpretation does not lead to a consistent implementation of the various rules of European
   Union law which are relied on in the present case, since the rules set out at paragraphs 66 to 68 above
   provide that the successive decisions of authorisation adopted by the Council, acting unanimously on a
   proposal from the Commission, were based on a common assessment by the Council and the
   Commission that the exemptions at issue did not give rise to distortions of competition or interfere
   with the working of the internal market, with the result that one of the elements of the definition of
   State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC, namely the requirement that it distorts competition, is
   a priori lacking.
85 That joint assessment on the part of the Council and the Commission is confirmed by the fourth
   recital of Decision 92/510, which states that ‘it is accepted by the Commission and by all Member
   States that all of these exemptions … do not give rise to distortions in competition or interfere with
   the working of the internal market’, and by a similar consideration referred to in the fourth recital of
   Decision 93/697 and Decision 96/273.
86 It is also confirmed by the judgment in Commission v Ireland and Others, paragraph 31 above
   (paragraph 83), where the Court of Justice states that ‘the Commission had taken the view, when the
   decisions authorising the exemptions at issue were adopted by the Council, that those exemptions did
   not give rise to distortions in competition or interfere with the working of the internal market’.
87 It is also confirmed by the Council in its reply to the questions put by the Court (see paragraph 36
   above) when it states that ‘acting on the basis of the powers conferred upon it in the framework of
   Article 93 EC, and therefore having taken account of the requirement of the proper functioning of the
   internal market, it authorised the three Member States concerned, in a situation known to it to
   comprise three specific beneficiaries and three other operators in other Member States also producing
   alumina, to maintain in force [the exemptions at issue], whose content, extent and effect were well
   known to both [it] and the Commission, until a fixed date’.
88 Moreover, according to the joint assessment of the Council and the Commission in the fifth recital of
   Decision 97/425, the fourth recital of Decision 1999/255, recital 4 of Decision 1999/880 and, in the
   same terms, in the fourth recital of Decision 1999/255, it was provided that ‘the … exemptions
   [would] be regularly reviewed by the Commission to ensure that they [were] compatible with the
   operation of the internal market and other objectives of the [EC] Treaty’.
89 Lastly, the Commission itself accepted, at recital 97 of the contested decision, that when the decisions
   of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, were adopted by the Council, acting unanimously
   on a proposal from the Commission, ‘it appear[ed] that one of the elements of the definition of State
   aid in Article 87 of the Treaty, namely the distortion of competition, [was] missing’.
90 In the light of the joint assessment of the Council and the Commission, which served as the basis for
   all the Council’s decisions of authorisation, to the effect that the exemptions at issue did not give rise
   to distortions in competition or interfere with the working of the internal market, it would be
   inconsistent to interpret recital 5 of Decision 2001/224 and the reference in that recital to any
   procedures or decisions under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC as meaning that the Council intended to
   make the effects of Decision 2001/224 conditional upon any procedures or Commission decisions
   16                                                                                                  ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---         JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                            IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   relating to State aid. On the contrary, that common assessment is consistent with the opposite
   interpretation, namely that the Council did not intend to make the effects of Decision 2001/224
   conditional upon the outcome of any subsequent procedures or decisions relating to State aid.
91 Second, the interpretation advocated by the Commission does not lead to a consistent implementation
   of the various rules of European Union law which are relied on in the present case, because the fact
   that the exemptions at issue were regionally selective was a direct consequence of the Council’s
   decisions of authorisation, which defined the restrictive conditions for the application of the
   exemptions at issue on a geographical basis. As the Commission itself stated in recitals 17 and 63 of
   the contested decision, the exemptions at issue could not, contrary to the provisions of the relevant
   national legislation, be applied throughout the territory of the Member States concerned but only in
   the regions specified in Annex I to Decision 2001/224, to which Article 1(1) of that decision referred,
   and, as stated in recital 63 of the contested decision, they ‘were regionally selective, because these
   Decisions [of authorisation on the part of the Council] only authorised exemptions in certain regions
   and potential investors interested to make investments in alumina production in other regions could
   not be sure to receive similar treatment’. Consequently, the fact that those measures were regionally
   selective could not a priori be attributed to the Member States concerned but was an effect of the
   Council’s decisions of authorisation.
92 In view of the fact that the regionally selective nature of the exemptions at issue was the result, not of
   unilateral and autonomous decisions of the Member States concerned, but of the Council’s decisions of
   authorisation, it would be inconsistent to interpret recital 5 of Decision 2001/224 and the reference in
   that recital to any procedures and decisions under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, as meaning that the
   Council intended to make the effects of Decision 2001/224 conditional upon any procedures and
   Commission decisions relating to State aid. On the contrary, that fact is consistent with the opposite
   interpretation, namely that the Council did not intend to make the effects of Decision 2001/224
   conditional upon the outcome of any subsequent procedures or decisions relating to State aid.
93 Third, the interpretation advocated by the Commission does not lead to a consistent implementation
   of the various rules of European Union law which are relied on in the present case, since the fact that
   the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic did not apply the minimum rate of excise duty
   set by Directive 92/82, which, for the period under consideration, was EUR 13 per 1 000 kg, was
   consistent with the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, which
   authorised the Member States concerned to apply or continue to apply the exemptions at issue until
   31 December 2006. As the Commission itself stated at recital 76 of the contested decision, ‘all three
   exemptions [authorised by the Council] were full exemptions’. They were thus distinguished from the
   reduced rates of excise duty or the application of differential rates of excise duty which were
   authorised by the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, subject to the
   express condition that the rates applied complied with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/82,
   including the minimum rates of excise duty set by that directive. Consequently, the non-payment by
   Eurallumina, AAL and Alcan before 31 December 2006 of duty corresponding at least to the
   minimum rate of excise duty set by Directive 92/82, which, for the period in question, was EUR 13 per
   1 000 kg, can be attributed to the Council’s decisions authorising the Italian Republic, Ireland and the
   French Republic to continue to apply, until that date, full exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils
   used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia, the Shannon region and the Garonne region
   respectively.
94 In view of the nature of the measures which it authorised, namely full exemptions from excise duty, as
   opposed to reduced rates of excise duty which complied with the minimum rate of excise duty set by
   Directive 92/82, it would have been paradoxical if, by recital 5 of Decision 2001/224, the Council had
   intended to express its intention to make the effects of that decision conditional upon a subsequent
   Commission decision relating to State aid, such as the contested decision, under which — subject to
   the requirement that the rates applied complied with the minimum rate of excise duty of EUR 13 per
   1 000 kg set by Directive 92/82 (see recital 76 and Article 4 of the contested decision) — only reduced
   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                  17
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
   rates of excise duty could lawfully be implemented by the Member States concerned. On the contrary,
   the nature of the measures authorised by the Council is consistent with the opposite interpretation,
   namely that the latter did not intend to make the effects of Decision 2001/224 conditional upon the
   outcome of any subsequent procedures or decisions relating to State aid.
95 It is apparent from paragraphs 83 to 94 above that recital 5 of Decision 2001/224 and the reference in
   that recital to any procedures or Commission decisions under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC cannot,
   contrary to the Commission’s contention, relate to cases in which Member States apply reduced rates
   of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty by complying purely and simply with an authorisation
   granted by a European Union institution (see, to that effect and by analogy, Commission v Greece,
   paragraph 59 above, paragraphs 15, 16, 24 and 25, and Case C-582/08 Commission v United Kingdom
   [2010] ECR I-7195, paragraphs 47 to 52). Such an interpretation would be at odds with the overriding
   need to ensure consistent implementation of the various provisions of European Union law which are
   relied on in the present case, a need which itself stems from the principle of legal certainty
   (paragraph 62 above). That recital and that reference therefore relate, a priori, to situations other than
   those in the present case, in which Member States apply reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions
   from excise duty by exercising a margin of discretion reserved to them by European Union law (see,
   to that effect, Deutsche Bahn v Commission, paragraph 73 above, paragraph 113; see also to that effect
   and by analogy, Socridis, paragraph 66 above, paragraphs 19 and 20) or by failing to comply with the
   conditions expressly laid down by that law to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market,
   such as the minimum rates of excise duty set in Directive 92/82.
96 Accordingly, there is no basis for the Commission’s claim that, by continuing to apply the exemptions
   at issue during the period up to 31 December 2003, the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French
   Republic disregarded a condition laid down in the Council’s decisions of authorisation, including
   Decision 2001/224, which made the effects produced by those decisions conditional upon the
   outcome of any subsequent procedures and Commission decisions relating to State aid.
97 It follows that all the conditions laid down in the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently
   Decision 2001/224, were complied with by the Member States concerned, so that they granted the
   exemptions at issue until 31 December 2003 not only in reliance on the Council’s decisions of
   authorisation but also in pure and simple compliance with the conditions laid down in those
   decisions.
98 Moreover, it is necessary to reject the Commission’s arguments that the Council’s decisions of
   authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, could not have the effect in any event of freeing the
   Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic from their obligation to comply with State aid rules
   and procedures and that the Council was not entitled, in exercising its powers in fiscal harmonisation
   matters, to encroach on the Commission’s virtually exclusive powers relating to State aid. As is
   apparent from the case-law cited at paragraphs 73 and 74 above, in order to be classified as State aid
   within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, any advantages which the exemptions at issue might have
   conferred on their beneficiaries would have had to be attributable to a unilateral and autonomous
   decision of the Member States concerned. In the present case, however, those Member States granted
   the advantages in question in reliance of the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently
   Decision 2001/224, and complied with all the conditions set out in those decisions. As the applicants
   correctly observed in their replies to the questions put by the Court and at the hearing, those
   advantages must therefore be imputed to the European Union, which, through one of its institutions,
   authorised the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic to continue to apply the exemptions
   at issue until 31 December 2006 on the ground, inter alia, that those exemptions did not give rise to
   distortion of competition.
99 It follows that, as long as the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224,
   remained in force and had not been amended by the Council or annulled by the European Union
   courts, the Commission was not entitled, even in the exercise of its virtually exclusive powers under
   18                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---           JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                              IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
    Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, to classify the exemptions at issue as State aid within the meaning of
    Article 87(1) EC. Moreover, since the procedural requirements laid down in Article 88 EC stemmed
    from the classification of the measures in question as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)
    EC, there is no basis for the Commission’s complaint that the Member States concerned failed to
    notify to it the exemptions at issue which they had granted until 31 December 2003 on the basis of
    the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, and in compliance with the
    conditions laid down in those decisions.
100 Although responsible for so doing (see paragraph 72 above), the Commission never used the powers
    available to it to seek amendment or abolition of the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most
    recently Decision 2001/224, annulment of those decisions or a declaration to the effect that Directive
    92/81 is invalid, either in its entirety or only as regards Article 8(4) of the directive. The Commission
    itself recognised, at recital 96 of the contested decision, that ‘[o]ne would generally not expect [it] to
    submit proposals to the Council authorising national measures that may be held incompatible with
    other provisions of the Treaty without hinting at such a possibility, especially when the proposals
    concern a very specific issue and a small number of beneficiaries, as in this case, and when those
    provisions are intended to avoid distortions of competition within the Community’, or ‘expect [it] to
    propose that the Council authorise an extension of an existing exemption, if it were to consider that
    any aid in the existing exemption could be found incompatible with the common market’. Similarly, it
    was not to be expected, having regard to the Commission’s obligation to ensure that the rules on State
    aid are implemented in a manner that is consistent with the other provisions of European Union law
    applicable to the exemptions at issue (paragraph 61 above), that the Commission — if it considered
    that certain effects produced by the Council’s decisions of authorisation or by Directive 92/81 were
    incompatible with the rules on State aid — would have refrained from exercising its powers to secure
    an amendment or partial annulment of those decisions, or a declaration to the effect that Article 8(4)
    of Directive 92/81, on the basis of which those decisions were adopted, was invalid.
101 The fact that it was not possible in the present case to classify the exemptions at issue as State aid
    within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC does not alter the fact that they were still governed by
    Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81, so that they may have been subject to ‘any procedures relating to
    distortions of the operation of the single market’, as provided for in recital 5 of Decision 2001/224.
    Article 1(2) of Decision 2001/224 thus confirms that the authorisation granted by the Council was to
    expire on 31 December 2006 ‘[s]ubject to a prior review by the Council, on the basis of a proposal
    from the Commission’, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81.
    It is not disputed, however, that the Commission never submitted to the Council, pursuant to that
    provision, an appropriate proposal based on the view that the exemptions at issue could no longer be
    maintained, particularily on the grounds of unfair competition or distortion of the operation of the
    internal market.
102 Furthermore, the Commission did not use the powers conferred on it by Article 230 EC to seek
    annulment of one or other of the Council’s decisions of authorisation on the ground that one or other
    of the decisions was flawed by an error of assessment as to whether, from an objective point of view,
    there was no distortion of competition, unfair competition or distortion of the operation of the
    internal market as a result of the exemptions at issue. Moreover, it did not raise any argument, on the
    basis of Article 241 EC (now Article 277 TFEU), to the effect that Directive 92/81 is unlawful, either in
    its entirety or in respect only of Article 8(4) of the directive. Indeed, neither the Council’s decisions of
    authorisation nor Directive 92/81 were, either totally or partially, annulled or declared invalid by the
    European Union courts.
103 Lastly, the Commission has never claimed, even in its written submissions in the present cases, that the
    Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, or Directive 92/81, considered
    in its entirety or solely in respect of Article 8(4) thereof, were to be regarded as non-existent
    measures or even simply that such measures were tainted by illegality.
    ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                   19
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
104 It follows that, as the Council correctly submitted in its reply to the questions put by the Court (see
    paragraph 36 above), when the Commission adopted the contested decision, Decision 2001/224 was in
    existence and remained valid. Decision 2001/224, the Council’s decisions of authorisation which
    preceded it and Directive 92/81, in particular Article 8(4) thereof, benefited from the presumption of
    legality attaching to any act of the European Union. They produced all their legal effects.
    Consequently, the Italian Republic, Ireland and the French Republic were entitled to rely on the
    Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, in order to continue to apply
    the exemptions at issue in Sardinia, the Shannon region and the Garonne region respectively until
    31 December 2003. Those decisions precluded the Commission, in principle, from being able, in the
    contested decision, to attribute the exemptions at issue referred to above to the Member States
    concerned and, therefore, from being able to classify them as State aid within the meaning of
    Article 87(1) EC and ordering the partial recovery of the exemptions to the extent that it regarded
    them as incompatible with the internal market for the purpose of Article 87(3) EC.
105 In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that, in so far as it calls directly
    into question the validity of the exemptions at issue granted by the Italian Republic, Ireland and the
    French Republic until 31 December 2003, the contested decision also calls into question, indirectly but
    necessarily, the validity of the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224,
    and the effects arising from those decisions. The contested decision thereby infringes the principle of
    legal certainty and also the principle of the presumption of legality attaching to European Union
    measures.
106 Consequently, the pleas and grounds of complaint alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty
    and/or the principle of the presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures in Joined
    Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV must be
    upheld.
107 With regard, secondly, to the complaint alleging breach of the principle of sound administration raised
    by Eurallumina in Case T-62/06 RENV, it is established case-law that that principle does not, in itself,
    confer rights upon individuals (Case T-196/99 Area Cova and Others v Council and Commission
    [2001] ECR II-3597, paragraph 43), except where it constitutes the expression of specific rights (Case
    T-193/04 Tillack v Commission [2006] ECR II-3995, paragraph 127, and the judgment of
    13 November 2008 in Case T-128/05 SPM v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR,
    paragraph 127.
108 It is apparent from the considerations set out above that, by adopting the contested decision, the
    Commission attacked, in particular, exemptions from excise duty which, as is clear from recitals 18, 20
    and 63 of the contested decision, had been granted by the Italian Republic to Eurallumina for its
    factory in Sardinia in accordance with the authorisation granted by the Council in Decision 2001/224.
    However, so long as the Council’s decisions of authorisation, most recently Decision 2001/224, were in
    force and had been neither amended by the Council nor annulled by the European Union courts, the
    principle of legal certainty and the principle of the presumption of legality attaching to European
    Union measures precluded the Commission from adopting, in the exercise of its virtually exclusive
    powers in matters of State aid, a decision which conflicted with the effects produced by Decision
    2001/224 by calling into question, inter alia, specific rights which the Italian Republic had conferred
    on Eurallumina in accordance with that decision.
109 It follows that, by adopting the contested decision without taking account of the specific rights which
    the Italian Republic had conferred on Eurallumina, in accordance with Decision 2001/224, and which,
    as a consequence of that decision, were legally protected by the principle of legal certainty and the
    principle of the presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures, the Commission also
    infringed the principle of sound administration.
    20                                                                                                  ECLI:EU:T:2012:134
 ---pagebreak---          JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                             IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
110 Without there being any need to examine the other pleas and grounds of complaint raised by Ireland
    in Case T-50/06 RENV, by AAL in Case T-69/06 RENV, by the Italian Republic in Case
    T-60/06 RENV, by Eurallumina in Case T-62/06 RENV and by the French Republic in Case
    T-56/06 RENV, the contested decision must therefore be annulled, in so far as it finds, or is based on
    the finding, that the exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production
    granted by the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian Republic until 31 December 2003 constituted
    State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and in so far as it ordered the French Republic,
    Ireland and the Italian Republic to take all necessary measures to recover the exemptions from the
    beneficiaries to the extent that they did not pay excise duty at the rate of at least EUR 13.01 per 1 000
    kg of heavy fuel oils.
    Costs
111 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs
    if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
112 Since the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, including those of
    the application for interim measures in Case T-69/06 R, in accordance with the forms of order sought
    by the applicants.
    On those grounds,
                       THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
    hereby:
    1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption
          from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the
          Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy, in
          so far as it finds, or is based on the finding, that the exemptions from excise duty on
          mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production granted by the French Republic, Ireland
          and the Italian Republic until 31 December 2003 constitute State aid within the meaning of
          Article 87(1) EC and in so far as it orders the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian
          Republic to take all measures necessary to recover those exemptions from the beneficiaries
          to the aextent that the latter did not pay excise duty at the rate of at least EUR 13.01 per
          1 000kg of heavy fuel oils;
    2.    Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by
          Ireland in Case T-50/06 RENV, by the French Republic in Case T-56/06 RENV, by the
          Italian Republic in Case T-60/06 RENV, by Eurallumina Spa in Case T-62/06 RENV and by
          Aughinish Alumina Ltd in Case T-69/06 RENV, including the costs of the application for
          interim measures in Case T-69/06 R.
    Pelikánová                                          Vadapalas                                               Jürimäe
    O’Higgins                                                                                          Van der Woude
    Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 21 March 2012.
    [Signatures]
    ECLI:EU:T:2012:134                                                                                                  21
 ---pagebreak---      JUDGMENT OF 21. 3. 2012 — JOINED CASES T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV AND T-69/06 RENV
                                                                       IRELAND AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
                                                                                        Table of contents
Background to the dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        2
 Alumina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       2
 Directives on excise duties on mineral oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                     2
 Council decisions adopted on the basis of Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                 3
 Administrative procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        4
 The contested decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    5
Proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                          6
Forms of order sought by the parties in the proceedings after referral back to the General Court . . . . . . . .                                                                                       8
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 Eurallumina’s heads of claim seeking certain declaratory relief from the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                      9
 Summary of the pleas and grounds of complaint raised by the applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                    9
 The pleas and grounds of complaint alleging unlawful application of the rules on State aid to the
 exemptions granted on the basis of the Council’s decisions of authorisation and in conformity with
 those decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            10
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21
22                                                                                                                                                                             ECLI:EU:T:2012:134