Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Assessment of validity – Question relating to the validity of a decision of the Commission considered by the national court to be the event occasioning loss – Admissibility

(Art. 234 EC)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Compatibility of the aid with the common market – Incompatibility of aid which infringes the general principles of Community law such as the principle of equal treatment

(Art. 88 EC)

3. State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Assessment of the validity of a Commission decision taken at the end of the preliminary investigation stage by reference to the information available at the time the decision was adopted

(Arts 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4 and 5)

4. State aid – Compatibility of the aid with the common market – Aid improving the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary for the attainment of the objectives laid down by Article 87(3) EC – Not compatible

(Art. 87(3) EC)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope

(Art. 253 EC)

Summary

1. A question referred for a preliminary ruling which relates to a decision of the Commission is admissible where the national court takes the view that that decision is the event occasioning the loss suffered by an undertaking and is interposed between the substantive conduct objected to by that undertaking as against the national authorities and the occurrence of the damage which it claims to have suffered.

(see paras 47-48)

2. State aid, certain of the conditions of which contravene the general principles of Community law, such as the principle of equal treatment, cannot be declared by the Commission to be compatible with the common market.

(see para. 51)

3. The preliminary stage of the procedure for reviewing aids under Article 88(3) EC, which is governed by Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation No 659/1999, is intended merely to allow the Commission to form a prima facie opinion on the partial or complete conformity of an aid measure or an aid scheme. The validity of a Commission decision not to raise objections against an aid measure or an aid scheme cannot fall to be determined by reference to information which could not have been available to it on the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. Were the position to be otherwise, the Commission would be encouraged systematically to initiate the investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC and to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments, in order to prevent information which could not be available to it leading to the annulment of its decision to authorise the aid measure or the aid scheme in question.

(see paras 57, 60)

4. State aid which improves the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary for the attainment of the objectives laid down by Article 87(3) EC cannot be considered compatible with the common market. A finding that an aid measure is not necessary can arise in particular from the fact that the aid project has already been started, or even completed, by the undertaking concerned prior to the application for aid being submitted to the competent authorities. In such a case, the aid concerned cannot operate as an incentive.

(see paras 68-69)

5. The obligation to state reasons laid down by Article 253 EC is in principle restricted to the reasons for which a given category of operators is to benefit from a given measure and does not mean that it is necessary to justify the exclusion of all other operators which are not in a comparable situation. Since the number of categories excluded from the benefit of a measure is potentially unlimited, the Community institutions cannot be under a duty to provide specific reasoning in relation to each of them. None the less, where the beneficiaries of the measure, on the one hand, and other excluded operators, on the other, are in a comparable situation, the Community institution which is the author of the act is under a duty to explain in what way the difference in treatment thus introduced is objectively justified and to give specific reasons in that regard.

(see paras 81-82)