Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. ECSC — Aid to the steel industry — Meaning — Financing by public funds of supplementary pay to compensate for a reduction in wages ensuing from a reduction in working time — Included — (Art. 4(c) CS)

2. ECSC — Aid to the steel industry — Time-limit fixed by Article 6(5) of the Sixth Steel Aid Code for the Commission to take a decision on the compatibility of aid — Time-limit not a prescription period linked to loss of competence — (General Decision No 2496/96, Art. 6(5))

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — ECSC decision — (Arts 4(c) and 15 CS)

4. ECSC — Aid to the steel industry — Commission authorisation — Authorisation by way of individual decision — Condition — Prior application by the Member State concerned — (Art. 95 CS)

Summary

1. 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. That is the case where public funds finance supplementary pay to compensate the employees of an undertaking for a reduction in their working week in consideration of their being employees of that undertaking and as compensation for their work for the firm. Such supplementary pay, irrespective of whether or not it stems from legal obligations or collective agreements, in fact constitutes an incidental element of the salary received and consequently comes under the labour costs which that undertaking must normally meet. The fact that public authorities meet the cost out of social concerns is therefore not sufficient to exclude it from being categorised as aid. Measures of State intervention are not characterised by reference to their causes or aims but defined in relation to their effects.

see paras 33, 36-37, 39, 45-46

2. In the context of the implementation of Article 6(5) of the Sixth Steel Aid Code, a Member State may legally put into effect an aid measure only pursuant to a formal decision by the Commission in that regard. In the absence of such a decision, the expiry of the three-month time-limit set for the Commission ' s decision cannot therefore have the effect of implicitly authorising the Member State to implement the planned aid measure. If that three-month time-limit were to be interpreted as a prescription period linked to loss of competence, the effect of there being no decision by the Commission within that period would be that 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; that would be contrary to the orderly functioning of the rules on State aid. A decision taken after the expiry of that time-limit is therefore not vitiated by lack of competence. Although in its relations with the Member States, the Commission is bound to observe a condition which it has imposed on itself, 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. Since the above period of three months was established in the interest of protecting legal certainty, in order to ensure a rapid decision by the Commission, failure to comply with that time-limit cannot lead to loss of competence, which would merely serve to delay a decision, which could be obtained only as a result of a new procedure, without offering any additional safeguard to the Member State. That is without prejudice to the possibility of bringing an action for damages where the delay in the Commission ' s decision has caused real damage to one of the parties concerned.

see paras 57-64

3. The statement of reasons required by Article 15 CS 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 having jurisdiction 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 15 CS 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. The Commission is, in particular, not required to form a view on a matter which is manifestly immaterial. Nor is it required, in connection with the application of Article 4(c) CS to the measures in question, to give any explanation concerning the consequences and economic impact of those measures on the common market, since an aid measure does not necessarily need to have an effect on trade between Member States or on competition in order to be caught by the provisions of that article.

see paras 68, 71, 75

4. The logic inherent in that system of authorisation, by way of exception, of aid necessary for the orderly functioning of the common market in coal and steel entails, in regard to the adoption of 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.

see paras 82, 85