Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2003-09-11
72. It is settled case-law relating to Article 253 EC, which is transposable to Article 15 ECSC, 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 253 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,  inter alia , Case C-367/95 P  Commission  v  Sytraval and Brink ' s France  [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63, and Case C-5/01  Belgium  v  Commission  [2002] ECR I-11991, paragraph 68).
80. In the present case, it is common ground that the Court of First Instance did not rule on the plea that the extension of the State guarantees attaching to the SNCI and Belfin loans did not constitute illegal aid inasmuch as that extension was duly notified on 25 June 1996 and was neither implemented nor granted at any time during the Commission ' s examination of Clabecq ' s situation, an argument which was expressly raised by the Kingdom of Belgium in paragraphs 30 to 32 and 45 of its statement in intervention at first instance.
81. It is true that, although the Court of First Instance is required to give reasons for its decisions, it is not obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by a party, particularly if the argument is not sufficiently clear and precise and was not adequately supported by evidence (see to that effect Case C-274/99 P  Connolly  v  Commission  [2001] ECR I-1611, paragraph 121).
86. The legality of a decision concerning State aid must be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted (Case C-288/96  Germany  v  Commission  [2000] ECR I-8237, paragraph 34, and Case C-74/00  Falck and Acciaierie Di Bolzano  v  Commission  [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 168).
87. A Member State cannot rely on information which it failed to provide to the Commission during the administrative procedure in order to challenge the legality of a decision concerning State aid (Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92  Spain  v  Commission  [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 31, and Case C-382/99  Netherlands  v  Commission  [2002] ECR I-5163, paragraph 76).
88. Since the decision to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 6(4) of the Fifth Code contains an adequate preliminary analysis by the Commission setting out the reasons for the doubts it entertained regarding the compatibility of the aid in question with the common market, it is for the Member State concerned and, where appropriate, the recipient of the aid to put forward arguments to show that the aid is compatible with the common market ( Falck and Acciaierie Di Bolzano  v  Commission , paragraph 170).
121. Although it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced (Case C-185/95 P  Baustahlgewebe  v  Commission  [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraph 24), a plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of that evidence is admissible in an appeal (Case C-53/92 P  Hilti  v  Commission  [1994] ECR I-667, paragraph 42).