«(Aid financed by parafiscal charges – Compulsory charges to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production – Retroactive effect of the charges – Validity of a Commission decision concerning State aid – Powers of the Commission)»

1.. State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Extent of the obligation – Notification must include the method of financing an account of its impact on the permissibility of the aid (EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3))

2.. State aid – Planned aid – Prohibition of implementation before the Commission's final decision – Direct effect – Scope – Charges introduced to finance aid granted contrary to Community law – Obligation on national courts to order repayment (EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

3.. State aid – Planned aid – Grant of aid in breach of the prohibition laid down in Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) – Subsequent Commission decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market – Effect – Ex post facto regularisation of the national legal measures relating to the grant of the aid – None (EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

4.. State aid – Respective powers of the Commission and of national courts – No power of the Commission to order repayment of non-notified aid (EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 October 2003 (1)

((Aid financed by parafiscal charges – Compulsory charges to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production – Retroactive effect of the charges – Validity of a Commission decision concerning State aid – Powers of the Commission))

In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

and

on the interpretation of Community law, in particular of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) and Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and of the Commission Decision of 9 August 1996 relating to aid measure No N 366/96,

THE COURT,,

composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Belgische Staat, represented by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Wouters, Messrs. Van Calster and Cleeren, represented by J. Keustermans, Openbaar Slachthuis NV, represented by J. Arnauts-Smeets, and the Commission, represented by H. van Vliet, acting as Agent, at the hearing on 10 December 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 April 2003,

gives the following

National legislation

... If the compulsory contribution is collected from persons who process, transport, handle, sell or trade in animals or animal products, it shall, on every transaction, be passed back up to the stage of the producer ...

Procedure before the Commission

Observations submitted to the Court

Reply of the Court

Observations submitted to the Court

Reply of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by orders of 28 June 2001, hereby rules:

Skouris

Jann

Timmermans

Gulmann

Cunha Rodrigues

Rosas

Edward

La Pergola

Puissochet

Schintgen

Macken

Colneric

von Bahr

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 21 October 2003.

R. Grass

V. Skouris

Registrar

President