![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing Espana v Commission (State aid) [2004] EUECJ C-187/02 P (11 November 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C18702_P.html Cite as: [2004] EUECJ C-187/02 P, [2004] EUECJ C-187/2 P |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
11 November 2004 (1)
(Appeal - State aid - Tax measures - Legitimate expectations - New pleas in law)
In Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P, Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa), established in Vitoria (Spain), represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, abogados,appellant in Case C-183/02 P,
Territorio Histórico de Álava - Diputación Foral de Álava, represented by A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente and Bravo-Ferrer Delgado, abogados,appellant in Case C-187/02 P,
supported byComunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, represented by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, abogado,intervener in the appeal,
TWO APPEALS under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 15 and 16 May 2002, the other parties to the proceedings being:Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Santaolalla Gadea and J.L. Buendía Sierra, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,defendant at first instance,
Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Electrodomésticos de Línea Blanca (ANFEL), established in Madrid (Spain),andConseil européen de la construction d'appareils domestiques (CECED), established in Brussels (Belgium),interveners at first instance,
THE COURT (Second Chamber),
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 May 2004,
gives the following
-Investments in new fixed assets made between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1995, which exceed ESP 2 500 million, in accordance with the Diputación Foral de Álava agreement, will receive a tax credit of 45% of the cost of investment determined by the Diputación Foral de Álava, to be applied to the definitive amount of tax payable.Any tax credit not used up because it exceeds the amount of tax liability may be applied in the nine years following the year during which the Diputación Foral de Álava agreement was concluded.The Diputación Foral de Álava agreement will lay down the time-limits, and any restrictions applicable in each case. The advantages granted under this provision will be incompatible with any other fiscal advantage in respect of the same investments.The Diputación Foral de Álava will also determine the length of the investment process, which may include investments made during the preparation of the project which is at the root of the investments.-
- dismissed the applications of the Territorio Histórico de Álava and of Demesa in so far as they sought annulment of the contested decision in respect of the tax credit of 45%; - declared the applications of the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and of Gasteizko Industria Lurra SA inadmissible in so far as they sought annulment in the same terms; - ordered the parties to bear their own costs.
- set aside the judgment under appeal; - give judgment itself in the matter and annul Articles 1(d) and 2 of the contested decision; - in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; - order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and those of the proceedings on appeal.
- set aside the judgment under appeal; - give judgment itself in the matter and annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the tax credit of 45%; - in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; - order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and those of the proceedings on appeal.
- set aside the judgment under appeal in part, in so far as it finds that the tax credit of 45% constitutes State aid; - order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
- dismiss the appeal; - order the appellant to pay the costs.
- incorrect categorisation of the impugned fiscal measure as State aid incompatible with the common market; - failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point; - an error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance in so far as it held that the impugned measure was not existing aid; - failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point; - an error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance in so far as it held that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations was not applicable.
- incorrect categorisation of the impugned tax measure as State aid incompatible with the common market; - failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point; - an error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance in so far as it held that the impugned measure was not existing aid; - failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point; - an error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance in so far as it did not find that the Commission had misused its powers; - failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point.
- maintaining in part the first and second grounds of appeal alleging, respectively, incorrect categorisation of the impugned tax measure as State aid incompatible with the common market and failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point; - maintaining the fifth and sixth grounds of appeal alleging, respectively, misuse of powers and failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that point; - withdrawing its other grounds of appeal.
The ground of appeal which Demesa bases on the principle of protection of legitimate expectationsArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
- had stated that the aid in question included a tax credit of 20% in respect of investments (Part I); - had considered that, for the purpose of applying the derogation provided for in Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, the conditions laid down in the Community guidelines of 19 August 1992 on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 1992 C 213, p. 2), which, after defining in point 2.2 the components of the category of small and medium-sized enterprises, stated, at point 4.1, fifth paragraph, that the Commission had decided to allow investment aid only up to the levels of 15% of the investment for small enterprises and 7.5% of the investment for other enterprises in the same category, were not satisfied (Part V); - had ordered the Spanish authorities to ensure that the aid was granted, inter alia, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (Article 1(4)).
The grounds of appeal whereby the Territorio Histórico de Álava alleges, first, incorrect categorisation of the impugned tax measure as State aid incompatible with the common market and, second, failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that pointArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
- the impugned tax measure is excluded as such from the scope of the law on State aid; - Article 92 of the Treaty has applied to the provisions of tax law only since the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning tax policy and the Commission notice of 10 December 1998 on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation.
The grounds of appeal whereby the Territorio Histórico de Álava alleges, first, an error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance in so far as it did not find that there had been a misuse of power and, second, failure to state the grounds of the judgment under appeal on that pointArguments of the parties
- to referring, at paragraph 84 of the judgment in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-'103/00 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-1385), relating to aid granted to another undertaking, to the case-law according to which a decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken with the sole, or at least the decisive, aim of achieving purposes other than those stated; - to declaring that the existence of a de facto harmonisation brought about by the contested decision had not been demonstrated.
Findings of the Court
1 - Language of the case: Spanish.