Joined Cases T‑515/13 and T‑719/13

Kingdom of Spain and Others

v

European Commission

(State aid — Shipbuilding — Tax provisions applicable to certain agreements put in place for the financing and acquisition of vessels — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market and ordering its partial recovery — Actions for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Advantage — Selectivity — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Obligation to state reasons)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 17 December 2015

1.      Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision of the Commission addressed to a Member State and finding an aid partially incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered — Admissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

2.      Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest in bringing proceedings established for one of the applicants — Other applicant alleged to have no interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility of the action

(Art. 263 TFEU)

3.      EU law — Interpretation — Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — To be taken into account when interpreting the operative part

4.      State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Derogation from the general tax system — Measure favouring a certain type of investment — Operation available, under the same conditions, to any undertaking without discrimination — Not selective in character

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

5.      State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Derogation from the general tax system — Measure of a general nature applicable without discrimination to all economic operators — Alleged discretionary power in granting the tax advantage — No selective character

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

6.      Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU)

7.      Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Inadequate statement of reasons — Plea capable of being raised at any stage of the proceedings

(Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2))

8.      State aid — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Characterising of the adverse effect on competition and of the affecting of trade between Member States

(Arts 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 85-89)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 90)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 94)

4.      In State aid matters, when assessing the selectivity of a State measure, the existence of a derogation from or exception to the reference framework identified by the Commission cannot, in itself, establish that the measure at issue favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, if that measure is available, a priori, to any undertaking.

The fact that the advantages at issue are granted on the basis of an investment in a particular asset, to the exclusion of other assets or other types of investments, does not mean that they are selective vis-à-vis investors, in so far as the operation is available, under the same conditions, to any undertaking without discrimination.

It follows that, where an advantage is granted, on the same terms, to any undertaking on the basis of a certain type of investment available to any operator, it acquires a general nature with respect to those operators and does not constitute State aid in favour of them.

(see paras 140-143, 146-148, 155, 180)

5.      In the area of State aid, the tax advantage which any undertaking may enjoy by reason of the realisation of a certain type of investment accessible to any economic operator cannot be regarded as being selective on the basis of an alleged discretionary power of the tax administration, since that power consists, de jure and de facto, only in the definition of the type of operation eligible to benefit from the tax advantages at issue.

(see paras 160, 163)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 177, 183)

7.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 183)

8.      In State aid matters, the obligation to state reasons requires a statement of the reasons which led the Commission to consider that the measure at issue falls within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, even in cases where it is clear from the circumstances in which the aid has been granted that it is liable to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, the Commission must at least set out those circumstances in the statement of reasons for its decision.

Moreover, where certain particular circumstances so require, the Commission must make a greater effort to state the reasons on which its decision is based, by providing information relevant to the likely effects of the aid on competition and on trade between Member States.

In that regard, the finding, appearing in the Commission’s decision, that the investors are active in all sectors of the economy and that the advantages strengthen their position in their respective markets is a general assertion that could be applied to any type of State support, without referring to any specific circumstance that would explain why the measures at issue are liable to distort competition and affect trade in the markets in which the investors are active.

In the particular circumstances of a scheme allowing shipping companies to acquire vessels constructed by shipyards of a Member State at reduced prices, causing a loss of shipbuilding contracts for members of rival shipyard groups, it is incumbent on the Commission to supply further indications to explain how the advantage retained by the investors, and not by the shipping companies or the shipyards, is liable to distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in the markets in which they are active.

(see paras 192, 193, 198, 200, 204, 207)