The "Plan Renove Industrial" was intended to facilitate the replacement of commercial vehicles belonging to natural persons, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), regional public bodies and bodies providing local public services. The mechanism consisted in the grant of an interest subsidy for loans to finance the purchase or hire-purchase of eligible new vehicles.

By a decision adopted in 1998, the Commission declared certain aid under that scheme to be incompatible with the common market and required it to be repaid. The Commission considered that that aid distorted competition in the single market for road transport and could not be granted exemption from the general prohibition of aid.

The Kingdom of Spain disputed that analysis and brought an action before the Court of Justice for annulment of the decision. The Spanish authorities argued, first, that the subsidies for new vehicles were not State aid caught by the EC Treaty and, in some cases, were covered by the "de minimis" rule (under which small sums of aid may be permitted). Second, the subsidies' aim was to improve road safety and the environment and they were therefore in any event compatible with the common market.

The Court holds first of all that State aid within the meaning of the Treaty is in principle involved.

So far as concerns application of the de minimis rule, the Commission had pointed out that that rule does not apply to the transport sector. None the less, the Court draws a distinction, in relation to aid of an amount below the de minimis threshold, between aid granted to non-transport companies and that granted to professional transport companies. The Court states that the differences between those two categories are such that the former cannot be considered to operate on the transport market or to form part of the transport sector. The Commission was therefore not entitled to refuse to examine whether aid granted to non-transport companiescould fall within the de minimis rule.

In the case of aid granted to professional transport companies, the Court by contrast confirms the Commission's analysis: in particular, aid potentially available to all or a very large number of undertakings in a sector suffering from overcapacity, like the transport sector, can, even if individual amounts are small, have an impact on competition and trade between Member States.

As to aid above the de minimis threshold granted to non-transport companies, the Court holds that such aid likewise affects competition with transport companies established in other Member States, since the liberalisation of road transport has opened up the market to undertakings from other Member States in the international transportation and cabotage sector.

However, the Court recalls, with regard to Spain's justification of the aid on the basis of its positive environmental impact, that Commission policy on State aid for environmental protection is defined in the Environmental Guidelines. The Commission must give reasons for its decisions in this field in accordance with the policy as so defined, because State aid for environmental-protection purposes may be authorised under certain conditions. The Court finds that in the contested decision the aid in question is not clearly classified with regard to the criteria in the Environmental Guidelines, so that Spain was not in a position fully to defend its rights.

Under these conditions, the Court has decided to annul the decision of the Commission regarding the decision of incompatibility of aid and its repayment.

NB:    In Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission, which is pending before the Court, Spain seeks the annulment of a decision adopted by the Commission in 2000 on the aid scheme, known as Plan Renove Industrial II, implemented by Spain for the purchase of commercial vehicles under the Cooperation Agreement between the Ministry of Industry and Energy and the Official Credit Institute. On 10 September 2001 Advocate General Alber delivered his Opinion in that case, in which he proposed that the Court should annul the decision adopted by the Commission in 2000 and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice. Available in French, English and Spanish. For the full text of the judgment please consult our Internet site www.curia.eu.int  from approximately 3 pm today. For further information please contact Reinier van Winden: Tel: (352) 4303 3355; Fax: (352) 4303 2731