Case C‑431/14 P

Hellenic Republic

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of evidence’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 8 March 2016

  1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

    (Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

  2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions

    (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)

  3. State aid — Concept — Compensation aid for losses suffered by farmers because of adverse weather conditions separate from their insurance contributions and financed by means of a loan contracted by an organisation owned by the State — Included

    (Art. 107(3) TFEU)

  4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time during the appeal — Inadmissibility

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

  5. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Criteria for assessment — Guidelines adopted by the Commission — Temporary Framework for aid measures to support access to finance in the economic crisis — Binding effect

    (Art. 107(3) TFEU; Commission Communication 2009/C 16/01)

  1.  Where an appellant alleges distortion of the evidence by the General Court, he must, under Article 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 168(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted by the General Court and show the errors of appraisal which, in his view, led to such distortion. In addition, it is settled case-law of the Court that distortion must be obvious from the documents in the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence.

    (see paras 32, 34)

  2.  See the text of the decision.

    (see paras 38, 57)

  3.  Payments, on an exceptional basis, of compensation aid for losses suffered by farmers because of adverse weather conditions that are independent of the contributions paid by farmers under crop and animal production insurance and that are financed by means of a loan contracted by an agricultural insurance organisation wholly owned by the State constitute an advantage that the beneficiary undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions, and therefore affect competition.

    In view of the independence of the contributions paid by the farmers in relation to the compensation aid received by them, those contributions cannot be regarded as specific charges imposed on the advantage consisting, in the present case, of the payment of that aid; nor can those contributions be regarded as connected with the introduction of that advantage. Therefore, the advantage and those contributions cannot be offset.

    (see paras 42, 43)

  4.  See the text of the decision.

    (see paras 55)

  5.  The Commission may not fail to have regard to Article 107(3) TFEU by adopting guidelines vitiated by an error of law or a manifest error of assessment, nor may it waive, by the adoption of guidelines, the exercise of the discretion that that provision confers on it. Further, when, in the exercise of that discretion, it adopts guidelines of that nature, these must be kept under continuous review for the purposes of anticipating any major developments not covered by those measures.

    Moreover, the adoption of such guidelines does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to examine the specific exceptional circumstances relied on by a Member State, in a particular case, for the purpose of requesting the direct application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, and to provide reasons for its refusal to grant such a request, should the case arise.

    On account of the effect of the economic crisis experienced by the Member States on the primary agricultural sector of the European Union, the Commission exercised the discretion conferred on it by Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by adopting the Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis, as set out in the 2008 Communication from the Commission (‘TCF’) and then the amended TCF, since both the former and the latter expressly mention that sector.

    (see paras 71-73)