1. ECSC - Steel aid - Commission authorisation - General decisions and individual decisions- Adoption of individual decisions to authorise aid not coming under any of the categories of aid authorised by a general decision - Competence
(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(c) and 95; Decision No 3855/91, Art. 1(1))
2. ECSC - Steel aid - Commission authorisation - Conditions - Exclusion of a principle that aid is granted once and once only
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 95, first subpara.)
1. Article 1(1) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code contains no general prohibition of aid but simply defines in general terms the scope of the derogation provided for in Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. Accordingly, that provision of the Code is not intended to exclude the adoption of other measures derogating from the prohibition laid down in Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.
Moreover, Article 1(1) of the Code must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is not competent, under the Code, to approve, in accordance with the simplified procedures introduced by the latter, aid not covered by Articles 2 to 5 of the Code, and that, on the contrary, it is competent to adopt, pursuant to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, with the unanimous assent of the Council, supplementary measures, whether general or individual, approving aid not covered by the Fifth Aid Code.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance was right to hold, first, that the Fifth Aid Code represented a binding legal framework only for aid compatible with the ECSC Treaty and enumerated by it and, second, that the Commission is empowered to have recourse to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty in order to adopt individual decisions.
( see paras 39, 42-43 )
2. It is true that, on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, the Commission could not in any circumstance authorise the grant of State aid which was not necessary to attain the objectives of that Treaty and would be likely to give rise to distortion of competition in the common market in steel.
However, it cannot be inferred from that provision or from the principle of necessity embodied in it that State aid is not necessary for a project for the restructuring of an undertaking unless it is granted once only.
Such an interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty would not be in conformity with the purpose of that provision, which is to grant the Commission power to meet unforeseen situations by taking account of the changing nature of market conditions. Indeed, application of the once and once only principle would excessively restrict the category of aid capable of being regarded as necessary within the meaning of that provision and would not allow the Commission to examine, in each particular case, whether a project for restructuring aid was necessary in order to attain Treaty objectives.
( see paras 53-55 )