Judgment_paragraph 65 · Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA v Commission of the European Communities (T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97, T-130/97)

65The Court observes that the applicants plead the illegality of the decision of 12 December 1994 in support of their application for the annulment of Decision 97/258. In its plea of inadmissibility, the Commission disputes whether the applicants are entitled to close on the ground that they could have raised that plea in an application against the decision initiating the procedure for examining the aid. However, it is sufficient to note that Decision 97/258 produces legal effects of its own, including the definitive refusal of the aid, and that the applicants must therefore have a means of redress against that decision (see, by analogy, Case 730/79 Philip Morris ν Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 5, and Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf ν Germany [1994] ECR I - 833, paragraph 14), which implies that they must be able to rely, in support of an action for the annulment of that decision, on the illegality of the decision on which it is based, irrespective of whether or not the applicants have challenged the decision to initiate the procedure for examining the disputed aid (Case T-129/96 Preussag Stahl ν Commission [1998] ECR II -609, paragraph 31).

Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA v Commission of the European Communities (T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97, T-130/97)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections