Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 18 February 1998. - Comité d'entreprise de la Société française de production, Syndicat national de radiodiffusion et de télévision CGT (SNRT-CGT), Syndicat unifié de radio et de télévision CFDT (SURT-CFDT), Syndicat national Force ouvrière de radiodiffusion et de télévision and Syndicat national de l'encadrement audiovisuel CFE-CGC (SNEA-CFE-CGC) v Commission of the European Communities. - State aid - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Trade unions and works councils - Inadmissibility. - Case T-189/97.
European Court reports 1998 Page II-00335
Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action brought by bodies representing the employees of the recipient undertaking - Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Arts 92, 93(2) and 173, fourth para.)
Applicants cannot properly rely on the fact that they are the recognised representatives of the employees of an undertaking in receipt of aid to claim that they are individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by a Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market. In contrast to Community control of concentrations, in so far as the Council has not yet exercised its power under Article 94 of the Treaty to adopt regulations for the application of Articles 92 and 93, there are no provisions, as regards State aid, comparable to those contained in Regulation No 4064/89 which expressly grant procedural prerogatives to the recognised representatives of employees.
It is not excluded that such bodies might, qua parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, submit comments to the Commission on considerations of a social nature which could be taken into account by the latter, if appropriate. However, they may not be regarded as individually concerned by the decision where - since no competitive position has been significantly affected and there is no actual infringement of the entitlement which they might have in their capacity as parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty to submit their comments during the procedure before the Commission - they cannot claim any prejudice such as to demonstrate that their legal position is significantly affected by the contested decision.
Nor can those bodies be regarded as directly concerned by the decision. Such a measure does not, in itself, entail direct consequences for the interests of the employees of the undertaking in receipt of aid. Such consequences will be produced only if measures independent of the Commission's decision are adopted by the undertaking itself or by the employers and employees.