The Legal Standing of Private Parties in the Area of State Aids After the Appeal in Commission v. Kronoply/Kronotex

The Kronoply appeal offers the ECJ an opportunity to revisit the conditions applicable to challenge decisions not to raise objections in the context of the state aids monitoring procedure. These conditions were defined in the Cook and Matra judgments but were not applied consistently in the subsequent case law. After the mentioned appeal, the conditions for private parties, wishing to challenge a decision not raise objection, are the following: they need to prove to be 'parties concerned' by the contested decision. This notion is interpreted broadly. Moreover, they should claim that their procedural rights were breached.

However, there is no need for these applicants to prove to be 'directly and individually' concerned by the decision, within the meaning of the Plaumann/Cofaz case law, and they can use any argument to prove that the Commission wrongly assessed the draft aid measure. This implies that the Kronoply appeal eases the position of private applicants. Two possible consequences of the judgment are the increase of the litigation against decisions not to raise objections and the reduction of the Commission's considerable discretion in the area of state aid.