Brussels, 25/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - In its ruling delivered in Case C-83-09 on Wednesday 25 May, the Court of Justice of the EU rejected the European Commission's appeal against a decision by the General Court in 2008. The General Court ruled as admissible an action for annulment - even though it ultimately rejected the action as being unfounded - brought by chipboard manufacturers Kronoply and Kronotex against the Commission decision in 2002, when matters were at the preliminary examination stage, “to raise no objections” to aid granted by Germany to Zellstoff Stendal GmbH (ZSG) for the construction of a paper pulp production plant. The Commission had not deemed it necessary to open a formal examination procedure.
In its appeal against the General Court's ruling, the Commission took the view that Kronoply and Kronotex were not “parties concerned” to the aid procedure within the meaning of the implementing regulation of Article 88 of the EC Treaty (Article 108 of the TFEU) and, therefore, “do not have their own party rights enforceable by bringing proceedings”. It argued that, in admitting the action for annulment, the General Court had erred. It claimed, too, that, in its ruling, the Court had gone beyond its area of responsibility in examining the substantive arguments advanced by Kronoply and Kronotex, given that these had not been raised to protect procedural rights, when the action could only have been admissible if it had been to obtain respect for these procedural rights. On these grounds, the Commission argued that the ruling would ultimately lead to the introduction of a popular action against state aid decisions, which is “extraneous to Community law”.
The Court rejected these arguments, indicating that: - the General Court rightfully deemed Kronoply and Kronotex to be “parties concerned”; even though they were not in direct competition with the company which received the aid, the General Court correctly decided that their interests would have been affected by an increase in the price of wood brought about by the aid; - the General Court made no errors in law in examining the substantive arguments put forward by the two companies, to determine if they could be linked to the claim of breach of procedural guarantees, namely, challenging the Commission decision not to open a formal examination procedure on the state aid granted to ZSG. (F.G./transl.rt)