EU & Human Rights

Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa v Commission (State aid)

[2002] EUECJ T27299Court of Justice of the European Union (including the General Court)2002

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All EU & Human Rights cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

(State aid - Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Tax measures - Selective nature - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers)

Territorio Hist�rico de Guip�zcoa - Diputaci�n Foral de Guip�zcoa, Territorio Hist�rico de �lava - Diputaci�n Foral de �lava, Territorio Hist�rico de Vizcaya - Diputaci�n Foral de Vizcaya, represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Santaolalla Gadea, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant, APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission's decisions, notified to the Spanish authorities by letters of 17 August 1999, to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC against the Spanish State in relation to tax aid in the form of a 45% tax credit in the Provinces of �lava, Viscaya and Guip�zcoa (OJ 1999 C 351, p. 29, and OJ 2000 C 71, p. 8), THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: M. Jaeger, President, R. Garc�a-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges, Registrar: B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

A decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to a measure in the course of implementation and classified by the Commission as new aidnecessarily alters the legal implications of the measure under consideration and the legal position of the recipient undertakings, particularly as regards the continued implementation of the measure. Until the adoption of such a decision, the Member State, the recipient undertakings and other economic operators may think that the measure is being lawfully implemented as a general measure not falling within the scope of Article 87(1) EC or as existing aid. On the other hand, after its adoption there is at the very least a significant element of doubt as to the legality of the measure which, without prejudice to the possibility of seeking interim relief from the court, must lead the Member State to suspend its application, since the initiation of the formal investigation procedure excludes the possibility of an immediate decision that the measure is compatible with the common market, which would enable it to continue to be lawfully implemented. Such a decision might also be invoked before a national court called upon to draw all the consequences arising from infringement of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC. Finally, it is capable of leading the undertakings which are beneficiaries of the measure to refuse in any event new payments or new advantages or to hold the necessary sums as provision for possible subsequent financial compensations. Businesses will also take account, in their relations with those beneficiaries, of the uncertainty cast on the legal and financial situation of the latter (Tirrenia, cited in paragraph 34, paragraphs 59 and 69, Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01 Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000, paragraph 85).

Substance

The first plea, alleging

The second plea, alleging

The third plea, alleging

The fourth plea, alleging

The fifth plea, alleging

Costs

112. Under Article 87(2)
On those grounds,

THE COURT hereby:

1. Dismisses the applications;

2. Orders the applicants

JaegerGarc�a-Valdecasas K. Lenaerts

LindhAzizi

Delivered in open court

H. Jung K. Lenaerts
Registrar President

1:

[1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 39, Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR I-3235, paragraph 166).
That is why Article 6 of the regulation on State aid procedure provides that a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure must include a 'preliminary assessment of the Commission as to the aid character of the proposed measure'.
It follows that the classification of a measure as State aid in a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure is merely provisional. The very aim of initiating the procedure is to enable the Commission to obtain all the views it needs in order to be able to adopt a definitive decision on the point (see, to that effect, Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 33, Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94 British Airways and Others and British Midland Airways v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, paragraph 59).
In order to avoid confusion between the administrative and judicial proceedings, and to preserve the division of powers between the Commission and the Court, any review by the Court of First Instance of the legality of a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure must necessarily be limited (see, to that effect, Case60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, paragraph 20). The Court must in fact avoid giving a final ruling on questions on which the Commission has merely formed a provisional view.
Thus, where in an action against a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure the parties challenge the Commission's assessment of a measure as constituting State aid, review by the Court is limited to ascertaining whether or not the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment in forming the view that it was unable to resolve all the difficulties on that point during its initial examination of the measure concerned (see the order of the President of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 R Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2001] ECR II-3915, paragraph 79).
The applicants argue primarily that the contested decisions relate to measures of a general nature which do not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) EC: the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue benefits in the same way all taxpayers investing more than ESP 2.5 billion.
They argue, first, that the Commission inferred that the tax measures at issue are specific from the fact that they are regional. However, they point out that the Provinces of �lava, Vizcaya and Guip�zcoa have, since the 19th century, enjoyed a fiscal autonomy that is recognised and protected by the Spanish constitution. That autonomy is implicitly called into question by the contested decisions.
Next, they argue that the Commission should not infer that the tax measures at issue are specific from any discretionary power which the Diputaci�nes Forales (provincial authorities) allegedly enjoy in granting the tax credit. The provincial authorities in fact merely check whether or not the conditions laid down by the tax measures at issue are satisfied and have no discretionary power of any sort in that regard. They cannot decide which undertakings should benefit, or alter the intensity of the 'aid' according to the particular characteristics of the undertaking concerned.
Lastly, they argue that it would be wrong to infer that the tax credit is specific from the fact that it requires a minimum investment of ESP 2.5 billion. That is an objective qualitative criterion which merely limits the scope of the tax concession.
In this connection, it must be remembered that Article 87(1) EC requires that, in order for a measure to be classified as State aid, it must favour 'certain undertakings or the production of certain goods'. The specific or selective nature of a measure therefore constitutes one of the characteristics of State aid (Case C-200/97 Ecotrade [1998] ECR I-7907, paragraph 40, Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission, cited in paragraph 41 above, paragraph 144, and Case T-55/99 CETM v Commission [2000] ECR II-3207, paragraph 39).
Now, in the contested decisions, the Commission identifies two reasons for provisionally treating the tax credit as a selective measure for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC: the ESP 2.5 billion investment threshold, which must be exceeded in order to benefit from the tax concession (paragraph 3.1 of the summary of Decision SG (99) D/6871 and paragraph 2.1 of the summary of Decision SG (99) D/6873), and the discretionary power enjoyed by the tax authorities of the Provinces concerned in granting the tax concession (OJ 1999 C 351, p. 32, for Decision SG (99) D/6871 and OJ 2000 C 71, p. 11, for Decision SG (99) D/6873).
Contrary to the applicants' submission, the Commission did not, therefore, rely in the contested decisions on the finding that the tax measures at issue applied only to part of the Spanish territory, namely the Provinces of the Basque country, in drawing the provisional conclusion that the tax credit is selective. The applicants cannot therefore claim that the contested decisions call into question the power of the three Basque provinces to enact tax legislation.
Next, the Court observes that it is clear from the tax measures at issue that they restrict application of the tax credit to undertakings making investments in new fixed assets of over ESP 2.5 billion. The tax measures at issue thus de facto limit application of the tax credit to undertakings with significant financial resources. On that basis, the Commission was reasonably entitled to take the provisional view that the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue was reserved to 'certain undertakings', within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC (see Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission, cited in paragraph 41 above, paragraph 157).
The applicants none the less argue that the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue must be regarded as being justified by the nature or structure of the tax system, because it operates according to objective criteria of uniform application and contributes to achieving the objective pursued by the tax provisions which instituted it.
In support of this, they argue that the investment incentive which the tax credit was designed to create is needed in an area which normally attracts few economic operators. They add that, where a State encourages investment and manages to attract undertakings to its territory, it guarantees future tax receipts because the undertakings concerned will be taxed in that State. The objective pursued by the tax measures of the provinces in question is thus, as is the case with State measures of this kind, to maximise tax revenue.
In this connection it must be remembered that a State measure which is justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it is part does not fulfil the condition of selectivity, even if it confers an advantage on its recipients (Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671 ('Maribel'), paragraph 33, and Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke [2001] ECR I-8365, paragraph 42).
In order to determine whether that justification applies in the present case, it is necessary to consider whether restricting the circle of potential beneficiaries of the tax credit is justified by the internal logic of the Basque tax system (see Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 164).
First of all, the fact that the tax measures at issue operate according to objective criteria and conditions does not prove that restricting the circle of beneficiaries to undertakings investing more than ESP 2.5 billion is justified by the internal logic of the tax systems of the three provinces concerned (see Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke, cited in paragraph 60 above, paragraph 53).
As regards the argument that the objective of the tax credit is to encourage economic development in the Basque region, it must be remembered that the objective pursued by a measure cannot enable it to escape classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC (see Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission, cited in paragraph 41 above, paragraph 168 and the references cited therein).
Lastly, the argument alleging a future increase in tax revenue is hard to reconcile with the granting of tax reductions. Even if that were the intended objective, it could also have been attained by general fiscal measures (see Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00 Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I-0000, paragraph 62).
That being so, the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment in taking the provisional view in the contested decisions that the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue is a selective measure, within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, in that it solely benefits undertakings which invest more than ESP 2.5 billion.
There is therefore no need to consider further whether or not it was reasonable for the Commission to find, on the basis of the information available to it at the time it adopted the contested decisions, that the Basque tax authorities enjoyed a discretionary power in granting the tax credit and that that supposed discretion was capable of rendering the tax measures at issue selective in nature (see paragraph 20 of the present judgment).
Secondly, the applicants argue that the Commission has failed to show that the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue gives rise to distortion of competition and affects trade between Member States. They emphasise that, before a measure can be considered to constitute State aid, it is necessary that the effect of that measure on competition is real and appreciable (Case 47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 487, paragraph 16, Case 248/84 Germany v Commission [1987] ECR 4013, paragraph 18, and Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 219, paragraph 58).
In this connection, it must be remembered that, in the case of an alleged aid programme, the Commission may confine its examination to the characteristics of the programme in question in order to determine whether it gives an appreciable advantage to the recipients in relation to their competitors and is likely to benefit essentially undertakings engaged in trade between Member States (see Maribel, cited in paragraph 60 above, paragraph 48, and Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 89). In a case such as the present, where an alleged aid programme has not been notified, it is not necessary for the reasoning on which the Commission bases its final decision, or a fortiori its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, to contain an up-to-date assessment of the effects of the aid on competition and on trade between Member States (see Maribel, cited in paragraph 60 above, paragraph 48).
Now, it was reasonable for the Commission to express, in the contested decisions, the provisional view that the tax measures at issue, which de facto restrict the grant of the tax credit to undertakings with significant financial resources, offer an appreciable advantage to the beneficiaries of that tax concession in relation to their competitors and are likely essentially to benefit undertakings which engage in trade between Member States.
The applicants' argument set out in paragraph 67 of the present judgment must therefore be rejected.
It follows from all the foregoing that the Commission could, without making a manifest error of assessment, take the view that a preliminary examination did not enable it to resolve all the difficulties raised by the question whether the tax concession in question constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
That being so, the plea alleging infringement of Article 87(1) EC must be rejected.
infringement of Article 88(2) and (3) EC
First of all, the applicants in Cases T-271/99 and T-272/99 submit that the tax credit which is the subject of the contested decisions is existing aid.
In this connection they state, firstly, that the tax concession, having in fact been introduced in 1984, already existed in the Provinces of �lava and Vizcaya before Spain joined the European Community. That being so, it constitutes existing aid, if indeed it must be classified as State aid. Consequently, the contested decisions, which initiate a procedure laid down for new aid, are unlawful.
That argument must be rejected. The tax concession in question was clearly granted on the basis of legal instruments adopted at a time when Spain was already a Member State, those being Norma Foral No 22/1994 of 20 December 1994 in the case of �lava and Norma Foral No 7/1996 of 26 December 1996 in the case ofVizcaya (see, to that effect, Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission, cited in paragraph 41 hereof, paragraphs 171 to 177). Moreover, the applicants offer no evidence to show that the tax concession allegedly introduced in 1984 and the tax credit referred to in the contested decisions are identical or that there is continuity between them.
At the hearing the applicants also asserted that the concept of State aid has evolved somewhat over time, as is recognised by Article 1(b)(v) of the regulation on State aid procedure. They argue that, when the tax measures at issue were adopted, the Commission did not regard tax concessions such as the one addressed by the contested decisions as being selective measures. The gradual change in the criteria applied by the Commission in ascertaining selectivity means that, if the tax credit must be regarded as State aid, it ought to be regarded as existing aid.
In support of their argument, the applicants refer to Commission Decision 93/337/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning a scheme of tax concessions for investment in the Basque country (OJ 1993 L 134, p. 25) and Commission Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996 concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form of a depreciation facility (OJ 1996 L 146, p. 42). They submit that the change in the criteria applied by the Commission in ascertaining selectivity in the context of its assessment of tax measures with reference to Article 87(1) EC was made clear for the first time in the Commission's Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 12 December 1998 (OJ 1998 C 384, p. 3).
In this connection, it must be remembered that, in accordance with Article 1(b)(v) of the regulation on State aid procedure, existing aid includes 'aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State'.
However, the points put forward by the applicants fail to persuade the Court that the criteria for establishing selectivity applied by the Commission in its assessment of tax measures in light of Article 87(1) EC changed at all after the adoption of the tax measures at issue. In both of the contested decisions (cited in paragraph 77 above), the Commission found that the tax measures under consideration were selective measures and classified them as State aid incompatible with the common market. There is nothing in either decision to indicate that the Commission would have regarded the tax measures at issue as measures of general application falling outside the scope of Article 87(1) EC had it examined them at the time they were adopted. As regards the Commission's notice of 12 December 1998, which is substantially based on the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance, that document elucidates the application to tax measures of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC. However, nowhere in it does the Commission announce any changeof practice in its decisions concerning the assessment of tax measures in the light of Article 87 EC and 88 EC.
Even if the applicants were able to establish that there had been such a change of practice, their argument that the tax measures at issue are existing aid could still not be accepted, for they fail to show that any change in the criteria for ascertaining selectivity applied by the Commission is attributable to the 'evolution of the common market' within the meaning of Article 1(b)(v) of the regulation on State aid procedure. In this connection, it must be remembered that whether a State measure is existing or new aid cannot depend on a subjective assessment by the Commission and must be determined independently of any previous administrative practice it may have had (see Gibraltar v Commission, cited in paragraph 38 above, paragraph 121).
Secondly, the applicants in all three cases argued at the hearing that the Commission infringed Article 88(2) EC in that it failed, in the contested decisions, to formulate its doubts as to the classification of the tax credit as State aid. They insist that, in the contested decisions, the Commission thus reached a final decision on the matter. That being so, the procedural guarantees afforded to the applicants by Article 88(2) EC were infringed.
It should be remembered that the Commission is required to initiate the formal investigation procedure if an initial examination does not enable it to resolve all the difficulties raised by the question whether the measure it is considering constitutes aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC, unless, in the course of that initial examination, it is able to satisfy itself that the measure at issue would in any event be compatible with the common market, even if it were aid (Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France, cited in paragraph 45 above, paragraph 39, BP Chemicals v Commission, cited in paragraph 45 above, paragraph 166). A decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure thus implies a provisional assessment of both the aid character of the measure and its compatibility with the common market.
That is why Article 6(1) of the regulation on State aid procedure provides that a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure must both 'include a preliminary assessment of the Commission as to the aid character of the proposed measure' and 'set out the doubts as to its compatibility with the common market'.
The fact that the Commission did not explicitly set out in the contested decisions its doubts regarding classification of the tax credit as State aid does not indicate that such classification was not temporary (see Case 323/82 Intermills v Commission [1984] ECR 3809, paragraph 21). In a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission is merely required to set out its doubts as to the measure's compatibility with the common market.
The fact that classification of a measure as State aid in a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure is merely provisional is confirmed by Article 7(2) ofthe regulation on State aid procedure, which provides that, on completion of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission may find that the measure does not constitute aid.
Lastly, the remarks made by the applicants following initiation of the formal investigation procedure, communicated to the Commission by letter of 9 November 1999, show clearly that they themselves took the Commission's classification of the tax credit as State aid to be provisional, for they in fact invited the Commission to terminate the procedure with a decision that the tax concession did not constitute State aid.
Thirdly, the applicants observe that the Commission regarded the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue as unlawful aid because the obligation to give prior notice laid down in Article 88(3) EC was not satisfied. However, according to the applicants, because the tax credit is not State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC the Spanish authorities were under no obligation to give notice.
None the less, the analysis set out in paragraphs 73 to 80 of the present judgment indicates that the Commission was entitled to take the view that, if the tax credit were State aid, it was new aid. That being so, the Commission was entitled to take the provisional view that the Spanish authorities had infringed Article 88(3) EC by failing to give prior notice of the measures to the Commission. Any other interpretation of Article 88(3) EC would render nugatory the obligation to give prior notice of new aid.
It follows that the second plea must also be rejected.
misuse of powers
The applicants argue that the Commission is guilty of a misuse of powers in that it availed itself of its right of action under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC in order to pursue a tax harmonisation objective.
They maintain that the contested decisions are part of a larger endeavour on the Commission's part to call into question the entire Basque tax system; the Commission is attempting to achieve tax harmonisation by means of State aid politics instead of taking the proper course laid down by the Treaty, that is to say the procedure provided for in Articles 96 EC and 97 EC.
It must be remembered that a decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken - predominantly, if not exclusively - for purposes other than those stated (Case T-46/89 Pitrone v Commission [1990] ECR II-577, paragraph 71, and JoinedCases T-92/00 and T-103/00 Diputaci�n Foral de �lava and Others v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, paragraph 84).
The aim of initiating the formal investigation procedure is to enable the Commission to obtain all the views it needs in order to be able to adopt a definitive decision on the classification of the measure under consideration and its compatibility with the common market (see, to that effect, Portugal v Commission, cited in paragraph 47 above, paragraph 33, and British Airways and Others and British Midland Airways v Commission, cited at paragraph 47 above, paragraph 59).
It is quite clear that the applicants have proffered no objective evidence indicating that the Commission's real purpose in adopting the contested decisions was something other than obtaining the views it needed. Their whole argument is based on subjective speculation concerning possible concealed motives underlying the contested decisions.
The plea alleging misuse of powers must therefore also be rejected.
breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
The applicants call attention to the Commission's adoption of Decision 93/337, in which it declared that certain tax concessions implemented in the Basque country, and in particular a tax credit for investment, constituted aid incompatible with the common market on the ground that they were contrary to Article 43 EC. The Commission raised no objection, however, to the fact the tax credit was applied only where investments exceeded a certain threshold.
The Commission's finding in the contested decisions that the investment threshold of ESP 2.5 billion rendered the tax credit selective in nature is, according to the applicants, a breach of their legitimate expectations.
It must be observed, first of all, that the tax measures referred to by Decision 93/337 are not the measures referred to in the contested decisions, Decision 93/337 relating to tax concessions introduced by Normas Forales Nos 28/1988 in the case of �lava, 8/1988 for Vizcaya and 6/1988 for Guip�zcoa.
Decision 93/337 does relate to tax measures which create a tax credit in the Basque country. However, the fact that the Commission's finding that the tax measures under consideration in that decision were selective was based on the circumstance that the tax credit applied only to undertakings operating exclusively in the Basque country does not mean that the Commission could not have found those measures to be selective on a different basis.
It follows that Decision 93/337 - in which, it must be emphasised, the tax credit created by the 1998 Normas Forales was declared incompatible with the common market - was incapable of generating an expectation in the minds of the applicants that the Commission would not initiate the formal investigation procedure with regard to the tax credit created by the tax measures at issue.
The plea of infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must therefore be rejected.
infringement of Article 253 EC
The parties argue that the statement of reasons for the contested decisions is inadequate. First of all, it is less detailed than that in Decision 1999/718 concerning Demesa or Decision 2000/795 concerning Ramond�n. Secondly, in the contested decisions, the Commission failed to consider to what extent it might be possible to regard the tax credit as being justified by the nature or structure of the Basque tax system. Thirdly, the Commission failed to give any real consideration to the effect that the tax credit might have on competition and trade between Member States. Fourthly and lastly, there is insufficient reasoning to support the Commission's assessment of the tax credit's compatibility with the common market.
It must be borne in mind that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC 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 Community 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 253 EC 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 (Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France, cited in paragraph 45 of the present judgment, paragraph 63).
In order to determine the extent of the obligation to state reasons for a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure it should be remembered that, according to Article 6(1) of the regulation on State aid procedure, where the Commission decides to initiate that procedure, it is permissible for its decision merely to summarise the relevant issues of fact and law, include a 'preliminary assessment' as to the aid character of the State measure in question and set out its doubts as to the measure's compatibility with the common market.
Thus, a decision to initiate the procedure must give interested parties the opportunity effectively to participate in the formal investigation procedure, during which they will have the opportunity to put forward their arguments. For thatpurpose, it is sufficient for the parties concerned to be aware of the reasoning which led the Commission to conclude provisionally that the measure in issue might constitute new aid incompatible with the common market (Gibraltar v Commission, cited above in paragraph 38, paragraph 138).
In the contested decisions the Commission clearly states the reasons for which it concludes provisionally that the tax measures at issue constitute State aid (paragraph 2 of Decision SG (99) D/6781 and paragraph 3.1 of the summary thereof; Decision SG (99) D/6783, OJ 2000 C 71, p. 11, and paragraph 2.1 of the summary). It goes on to set out its doubts as to the compatibility of the tax measures with the common market (paragraph 4 of Decision SG (99) D/6871 and paragraph 3.3 of the summary, Decision SG (99) D/6873, OJ 2000 C 71, p. 12, and paragraph 2.3 of the summary).
The statement of reasons for the contested decisions was thus sufficient to enable the applicants to be aware of the reasoning which led the Commission to adopt those decisions and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review.
Moreover, the observations formulated by the applicants following the initiation of the formal investigation procedure show that they did not misunderstand the arguments developed by the Commission in the contested decisions.
That being so, it must be held that the statement of reasons for the contested decisions was sufficient.
The last plea must therefore also be rejected.
In view of all of the foregoing, the actions must be dismissed.
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission, be ordered to pay the costs of the Commission in addition to their own.
OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
to pay their own costs together with those of the Commission.
in Luxembourg on 23 October 2002.
Language of the case: Spanish. absolute inset-x-0 bottom-0 h-32 bg-gradient-to-t from-surface/95 via-surface/60 to-transparent">

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More EU & Human Rights cases

ABDULLAH KILIC v. TURKIYE - 43979/17 (Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Second Section) French Text

[2023] ECHR 92

RADOI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 31590/15 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 11

DUGAN v. TURKIYE - 84543/17 (Judgment : Art 5 § 1 - Deprivation of liberty - Unjustified short-term detention at a police station of applicant, a transgender person, for disrupting traffic : Second Section)

[2023] ECHR 113

BABIN v. UKRAINE - 9245/19 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fifth Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 138

MACATE v LITHUANIA - 61435/19 (Judgment : Freedom of expression - Temporary suspension of children's fairy tale book depicting same-sex relationships and its subsequent labelling as harmful to children under the age of 14 : Grand Chamber)

[2023] ECHR 69

NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 74076/16 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 22

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.