Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-12-12
27. The contested decision was notified to the Kingdom of Belgium on 5 December 2000 under number C (2000) 3563.
32. First of all, it should be recalled that, as the Court has already held, the concept of aid is wider than that of a subsidy because it embraces not only positive benefits, such as the subsidies themselves, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the normal burdens on the budget of an undertaking and which therefore, without being subsidies in the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect (see, inter alia , Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg  v High Authority  [1961] ECR 1, 39; Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España  v Ayuntamiento de Valencia  [1994] ECR I-877, paragraph 13; Case C-200/97 Ecotrade  [1998] ECR I-7907, paragraph 34; and Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke  [2001] ECR I-8365, paragraph 38).
33. Furthermore, the expression aid, for the purposes of Article 4(c) CS, necessarily implies advantages granted directly or indirectly through State funds or constituting an additional charge for the State or for bodies designated or established by the State for that purpose (see, inter alia , Case 82/77 Openbaar Ministerie of the Netherlands  v Van Tiggele  [1978] ECR 25, paragraphs 23 to 25; Joined Cases C-72/91 and C-73/91 Sloman Neptun  v Bodo Ziesemer  [1993] ECR I-887, paragraphs 19 and 21; Joined Cases C-52/97 to C-54/97 Viscido and Others  v Ente Poste Italiane  [1998] ECR I-2629, paragraph 13; and Ecotrade , cited above, paragraph 35).
45. In fact, the Court has consistently held that measures of State intervention are not characterised by reference to their causes or aims but defined in relation to their effects (see, to that effect, inter alia , Case 173/73 Italy  v Commission  [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 27; Case C-241/94 France  v Commission  ( Kimberley-Clark ) [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20; and Case C-480/98 Spain  v Commission  [2000] ECR I-8717, paragraph 16).
46. The social character of State assistance is therefore not sufficient to exclude it from the outset from being categorised as aid (see, inter alia , Kimberly-Clark , cited above, paragraph 21, Case C-75/97 Belgium  v Commission  [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 25, and Case C-251/97 France  v Commission  [1999] ECR I-6639, paragraph 37).
52. However, the nature of a time-limit must be determined with reference to the general context in which it occurs and with regard to its objective (see, to that effect, inter alia , Case C-357/88 Hopermann  [1990] ECR I-1669, paragraph 12 and Case C-289/97 Eridania  [2000] ECR I-5409, paragraph 26).
54. The sixth steel aid code, adopted under Article 95 CS, nevertheless authorises the grant of aid to the steel industry in cases exhaustively enumerated, and in accordance with prescribed procedures. Article 6(4) of that code provides, in particular, that planned measures may be put into effect only with the approval of the Commission. Article 6(6) expressly derogates from that rule by providing that those measures may be put into effect if the Commission has failed to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 6(5) or otherwise to make its position known within two months of receiving notification of a proposal, provided that the Member State has first informed the Commission of that intention.
55. Cases in which aid to the steel industry may be granted therefore constitute an exception to the rule according to which such aid is prohibited and can in principle be granted only pursuant to a formal Commission decision.
56. Any derogation from or exception to a general rule must be interpreted strictly (see, inter alia , Case C-399/93 Oude Luttikhuis and Others  [1995] ECR I-4515, paragraph 23 and Case C-83/99 Commission  v Spain  [2001] ECR I-445, paragraph 19).
58. If that three-month time-limit were to be interpreted as a prescription period linked to loss of competence whose expiry prohibits the Commission from expressing a view on the compatibility with the ECSC Treaty of a planned aid measure where a decision in that regard has not been adopted by the Commission within that period, the Member State concerned would, on the one hand, be prevented from implementing that aid measure and, on the other, find it impossible to obtain an authorisation decision to that effect from the Commission under the procedure initiated by the latter. As the Advocate General pointed out in paragraph 101 of her Opinion, such a situation would be contrary to the orderly functioning of the rules on State aid.
59. In a situation such as the one described in the preceding paragraph, the Commission's authorisation may be obtained only as a result of a new procedure initiated in accordance with the sixth steel aid code, which would delay the Commission's decision without offering any additional safeguard to the Member State concerned, and be contrary to the objective of Article 6(5) of that code.
60. Therefore, given its general context and objective, the three-month period set out in Article 6(5) of the sixth steel aid code cannot be regarded as a prescription period linked to loss of competence.
61. It is true that, in its relations with the Member States, the Commission is bound to observe a condition which it has imposed on itself (see, to that effect, Case C-170/00 Finland  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-1007, paragraph 34 and Case C-158/00 Luxembourg  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-5373, paragraph 24).
62. Nevertheless, the failure to comply with such a condition is likely to constitute a breach only if it would render nugatory a procedural safeguard granted to the Member States (see, to that effect, Finland  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 34 and Luxembourg  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 24).
68. It is settled case-law relating to Article 235 EC and transposable to Article 15 CS that the statement of reasons required by that provision must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 235 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see, in particular, Case C-56/93 Belgium  v Commission  [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph 86; Case C-367/95 P Commission  v Sytraval and Brink's France  [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63; and Case C-310/99 Italy  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 48).
71. In that regard, it is sufficient to state by way of reply that the Commission was not required to form a view on that matter, which is manifestly immaterial to the classification of the contested measures as State aid (see, to that effect, Commission  v Sytraval and Brink's France , paragraph 64).
75. In that regard, it must be held that, in order to be caught by the provisions of Article 4(c) CS, an aid measure does not necessarily need to have an effect on trade between Member States or on competition (see Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 102), with the result that the Commission is not required to state reasons for the contested decision on that point.
84. The Commission exercises that power when it considers that the aid in question is necessary for the purpose of attaining the objectives of the Treaty.
85. As noted in paragraph 138 of the Advocate General's Opinion, the logic inherent in that system of authorisation entails, in regard to an individual decision by the Commission, that the Member State concerned applies to the Commission for the procedure laid down in Article 95 CS to be initiated before the Commission considers whether aid is needed in order to attain the Treaty's objectives.