- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 1996. # Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European Communities. # ECSC - State aid - Individual decision refusing to authorize the grant of State aid to a steel-making undertaking - Suspension of operation of a measure - Necessary interim measures - Interest in obtaining the interim measures sought - Application dismissed. # Case T-164/96 R.
ECLI:EU:T:1996:205
61996TO0164
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Avis juridique important
61996B0164
European Court reports 1996 Page II-02261
Summary
Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Interest of applicant in obtaining the measure sought - Measures which do not prejudge the decision on the merits - Application for suspension of a decision refusing authorization for the grant of aid to a steel undertaking and for the reopening of the procedure for examining that aid - Dismissed - Application for an order requiring the Commission to call upon a Member State to suspend the payment of aid under an authorized scheme - Dismissed (ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(c), 34 and 39; Commission Decision No 3855/91)
A decision of the Commission refusing authorization for the grant of State aid to a steel undertaking is negative in character. Such an undertaking cannot establish an interest in obtaining the suspension of such a decision by way of interim relief since, in the absence of a positive decision of the Commission authorizing the aid in question, the prohibition on subsidies and aid laid down by Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty must apply.
Nor can such an undertaking establish an interest in obtaining, by way of interim relief, the reopening of the procedure for examining the aid in question, inasmuch as to reopen the procedure would not necessarily lead the Commission to adopt a positive decision which alone could permit the State in question to grant the aid to that undertaking. Moreover, a measure of that kind would not be an interim measure since it would produce the same results as those sought in the main proceedings and prejudge the decision on the merits.
Finally, where the aid in question is related to a system of aid, already approved by the Commission, for the permanent closure of steelworks, to uphold an application for interim relief seeking that the Commission be required to call upon the Member State concerned to suspend payment of aid for closure to the other undertakings which have applied for it is of only apparent usefulness, inasmuch as it does not prevent the expiry of the time-limit, laid down in Decision No 3855/91, beyond which no more aid can be paid. Moreover, such a measure - amounting to ordering a Member State to suspend an aid scheme already found to be compatible with the Treaty - would manifestly be beyond the powers conferred on the Commission.