«(State aid – Decision 96/666/EC – Compensation for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany – Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Regional economic development)»

1.. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid for areas affected by the division of Germany – Scope of the derogation – Strict interpretation – Economic disadvantages caused by the isolation created by the frontier established between the two zones (Art. 92(1) and (2)(c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) and (2)(c) EC))

2.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision consistent with previous decisions – Permissibility of summary statement of reasons (Art. 190 of the EC Treaty (now Art. 253 EC))

3.. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid which may be regarded as compatible with the common market – Aid to remedy serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Strict interpretation – Disturbance affecting the whole of the economy of the Member State concerned (Art. 92 (3)(a), (b) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art 87(3)(a), (b) and (c) EC))

4.. State aid – Planned aid – Power of assessment of the Commission – Review by the Court – Limits (Art. 92(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3) EC))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 September 2003 (1)

((State aid – Decision 96/666/EC – Compensation for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany – Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Regional economic development))

In Case C-301/96,

applicant,

v

defendant, supported by

intervener,

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 96/666/EC of 26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the Volkswagen Group in Mosel and Chemnitz (OJ 1996 L 308, p. 46),

THE COURT,,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mischo,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 26 February 2002, at which the Federal Republic of Germany was represented by T. Oppermann and W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agents, and the Commission by K.-D. Borchardt and M. Núñez-Müller,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 28 May 2002,

gives the following

The decisions of 22 March 1991

The decisions of 30 March 1993

The decisions of 24 May 1994

Commission Decision 94/1068/EC

The decisions of 21 February 1996

The contested decision

First plea in law: breach of Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty

Findings of the Court

Second plea in law: breach of Article 190 of the Treaty

Alleged failure to state reasons for the decision with respect to Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty

─ Findings of the Court

Alleged contradictory nature of the reasoning of the contested decision as regards the nature of the investment

─ Findings of the Court

Third plea in law: breach of Article 92(3)(b) of the Treaty

Findings of the Court

Fourth plea in law: breach of Article 92(3) of the Treaty

1. First part of the fourth plea

─ Findings of the Court

2. Second part of the fourth plea

─ Findings of the Court

Fifth plea in law: incomprehensibility and inaccuracy of the cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission

Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

Rodríguez Iglesias

Puissochet

Wathelet

Schintgen

Timmermans

Edward

Jann

Skouris

Macken

von Bahr

Cunha Rodrigues

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 September 2003.

R. Grass

G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias

Registrar

President