1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — ECSC Decision — (Art. 15 CS)
2. Procedure — Grounds of judgments — Scope
3. ECSC — Steel aid — Commission Decision — Legality to be assessed in the light of the information available when the decision was adopted — Member State granting the aid and the recipient thereof to be diligent as regards the communication of all relevant information — (General Decision No 3855/91, Art. 6(4))
4. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the appraisal of the evidence — Not possible except where the sense has been distorted
1. 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 competent 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 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.
see para. 72
2. The Court of First Instance is required to give reasons for its decisions but is not obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by the applicant, particularly if the argument is not sufficiently clear and precise and was not adequately supported by evidence.
see para. 81
3. 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.
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 such a decision.
Since the decision to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 6(4) of the Fifth Steel Aid 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.
see paras 86-88
4. Although it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced, a plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of that evidence is admissible in an appeal.
see para. 121