Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1. Plea of illegality ° Plea raised, in an action for the annulment of a decision, against a previous decision not challenged within the time-limit ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 173 and 184)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Measures against which actions may be brought ° Definition ° Measures producing legal effects ° Commission decision extending the validity of the Community framework for State aid in an economic sector beyond its expiry date

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

3. State aid ° Examination by the Commission ° Establishment of a framework for aid in an economic sector ° Necessary temporal limitation

(EEC Treaty, Art. 93(1))

4. Community law ° Interpretation ° Methods

Summary

1. An applicant cannot, in an action for annulment of a decision, raise a plea of illegality against an earlier act of the same kind, annulment of which he could have sought directly. To permit that would make it possible indirectly to challenge earlier decisions which were not contested within the period for bringing proceedings prescribed in Article 173 of the Treaty, thereby circumventing that time-limit.

2. An action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects.

That is the case of a Commission decision to extend the validity of the Community framework for State aid in an economic sector beyond the date on which it would otherwise have expired.

3. By providing that the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, is to keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States, and to propose to them any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the common market, Article 93(1) of the Treaty creates an obligation of regular, periodic cooperation on the part of the Commission and the Member States, from which neither the Commission nor a Member State can release itself for an indefinite period depending on the unilateral will of either of them.

4. Where the wording of secondary Community law is open to more than one interpretation, preference should be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty rather than the interpretation which leads to its being incompatible with the Treaty.