Exemplos de uso de Aid at issue em Inglês e suas traduções para o Português
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
What, then, is the nature of the aid at issue?
It is clear from the documents before the Court that the aid at issue forms part of a general policy to remedy the specific economic disadvantages suffered by the Zonenrandgebiet.
It is from that date that the Commission accuses the Federal Republic of Germany of having granted the aid at issue.
Consequently, I am of the opinion that the assessment of the aid at issue did not fall within the scope of Article 67 CS.
OPINION OF MR BOT- CASE C-408/04 P ment of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in order to avoid the obligation to recover the aid at issue.
Second, I am of the opinion that the obligation to notify the aid at issue follows very clearly from the wording of Article 6 of the Third Code.
Like the Court of First Instance,I take the view that the Commission was in a position to know about the existence of the aid at issue.
In so far as the aid at issue benefited an undertaking falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty, its compatibility with the common market was therefore governed by the specific rules of the latter.
In particular, Salzgitter accuses the Court of First Instance of having committed an error of law in holding that the examination of the aid at issue fell within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Given that the aid at issue was not notified to the Commission until 6 June 1997, it follows that the Commission could not examine it in the light of the Fifth Steel aid Code.
Article 67 CS reads as follows:committed an error of law in finding that the obligation to notify the aid at issue was not clear from the legal framework applicable.
Since the approval did not cover aid in the motor vehicle sector, the aid at issue should have been notified, either under the provisions of the Community framework or, if that did not apply, under Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
First, the Commission's decisions not to raise objections to Article 3 of the ZRFG, in my view,could not have given precise assurances as to the compatibility of the aid at issue with the rules of the ECSC Treaty.
By Decision 2000/797/ECSC,10the Commission declared that the aid at issue constituted State aid which was incompatible with the common market in coal and steel(Article 1) and ordered the.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance, in holding that the Commission was entitled to rely on Article 4(c)CS for the purposes of assessing the aid at issue, incorrectly assessed the extent of the Commission's powers.
In the context of this Opinion, I would submit that, by failing to notify the aid at issue, the Federal Republic of Germany did not comply with the procedure laid down by the various steel aid codes since 1986.
By this first limb,Salzgitter considers that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the Commission was entitled to assess the aid at issue under Article 4(c) CS. 26.
The grant to Salzgitter of the aid at issue does not therefore constitute a mere individual measure implementing the ZRFG since the examination of the compatibility of that aid must be subject to the specific rules laid down by the ECSC Treaty for controlling State aid. .
The question is whether, in the specific circumstances of this case as set out by the Court of First Instance,the Commission was entitled to seek recovery of the aid at issue without breaching the principle of legal certainty.
The aid at issue contained a financial incentive to sell and buy raw materials produced in the regionand hence it constituted a restriction on the free movement of goods, or more precisely a measurehaving an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited by the Treaty.
The issues of the case having thus been set out,I shall now explain why I consider that the Court of First Instance was entitled to take the view that the examination of the aid at issue did indeed fall within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
In the light of the foregoing,I therefore take the view that the aid at issue, although it forms part of a general scheme of aid previously authorised by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty, must be examined, in isolation, in the light of the rules laid down in the ECSC Treaty.
In the light of the foregoing, I therefore take the view that the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in holding,in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, that the aid at issue fell within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Even though the aid at issue can be regarded as elements of a general policy on economic, industrial, regional and social matters, I none the less do not consider them to be mere individual implementing measures which, in the light of the caselaw cited by Salzgitter, would not need to be notified to the Commission.
Now, as part of my analysis of the third limb of the first plea,I shall examine whether the Commission was none the less entitled to require repayment of the aid at issue without breaching the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
Consequently, I consider that, by pointing out that the aid at issue had not been notified and, as a consequence, ordering its repayment, the contested decision does not therefore show that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty, when, at the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany, by failing to notify that aid in accordance with the requirements of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Codes, failed to comply with that principle.
Next, I likewise consider that the rules laid down by the Commission under the First Steel Aid Code could not have created on the part of Salzgitter a legitimate expectation as to the compatibility of the aid at issue with the common market.
The German Government's argument is based on the premiss that,since the Community framework did not apply from January to March 1991, the aid at issue, which came within the regional aid scheme provided for by the 19th Outline Plan, was already approved.
It was in the light of those considerations and the information sent by Salzgitter to the Commission in accordance with the aforementioned obligations that the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 179 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission‘should have observed andfound that there was a failure to notify[the aid at issue] and then commenced appropriate proceedings.
It thus interpreted the relevant points of the multisectoral framework of 1998 in a manner contrary to their wording, meaning and object,by holding that the repercussions of the regional aid at issue on competition had to be assessed in the light of both the capacity utilisation of the sector concerned and the existence of a declining market.