66The Court of First Instance held as follows in the contested judgment:149 As for the complaint of insufficient reasoning, it should be recalled that the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the... Treaty... must clearly and unequivocally show the reasoning of the institution which adopted the measure, so as to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review and the persons concerned to know the grounds on which the measure was adopted (see, for example, Case T-84/96 Cipeke v Commission [1997] ECR II-2081, paragraph 46).150 In this case, the [contested decision] contains only a brief summary of the grounds for the Commission's refusal to apply the derogation in Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty to the facts of the case.151 Nevertheless, the [contested decision] was adopted in a context that was well known to the German Government and the applicants and forms part of a consistent line of decision-making practice, particularly in relation to those parties. Such a decision may be supported by a summary statement of reasons (Case 73/74 Papiers Peints v Commission [1975] ECR 1491, paragraph 31 ; Case T-34/92 Fiatagri and New Holland Ford v Commission [1994] ECR II-905, paragraph 35).152 Since 1990, in its relations with the Commission, the German Government has referred many times to Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty, insisting on the importance of that provision for the recovery of the former East Germany (see, in particular, the letter from Chancellor Kohl to President Delors of 9 December 1992...).153 The arguments put forward by the German Government in that regard were rejected in various letters or decisions of the Commission [see, in particular, the Commission notice pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EEC Treaty to other Member States and other parties concerned regarding the proposal by the German Government to award State aid to the Opel group in support of its investment plans in the new Länder (OJ 1993 C 43, p. 14); the Commission notice pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EEC Treaty to other Member States and interested parties concerning aid which Germany proposes to grant Rhône-Poulenc Rhotex GmbH (OJ 1993 C 210, p. 11); Commission Decision 94/266/EC of 21 December 1993 on the proposal to award aid to SST-Garngesellschaft mbH, Thüringen (OJ 1994 L 114, p. 21); the Mosel I decision; and Commission Decision 94/1074/EC of 5 December 1994 on the German authorities' proposal to award aid to Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH, Thüringen (OJ 1994 L 386, p. 13)].154 In that respect, particular importance should be accorded to the Mosel I decision, in which the Commission declared some of the aid in question, amounting to DEM 125.2 million, incompatible with the common market after excluding, on grounds identical to those used in the [contested decision], the possibility that that aid might be covered by Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty. It should be noted, moreover, that neither the applicants nor the German authorities have brought any action against that earlier decision.155 Even though, between the adoption of the Mosel I decision and the adoption of the [contested decision], the Commission, the German authorities and the applicants have had numerous contacts revealing their continuing differences of opinion concerning the applicability of Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty to the aid in question (see Points V and VI of the (contested decision]), it should also be noted that no specific or new argument has been put forward in that context, particularly as to the existence of a causal link between the position of the motor-vehicle industry in Saxony after German reunification and the division of Germany (see paragraph 141 above).156 In those circumstances, the Court finds that the applicants and the Federal Republic of Germany were sufficiently informed of the grounds for the [contested decision] and that, in the absence of more specific arguments, the Commission was not obliged to state the grounds for it more extensively.157 It follows from the above considerations as a whole that the complaints alleging infringement of Article 92(2)(c) of the Treaty and an insufficient statement of reasons must be rejected.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.