On the Rules of Standing to Challenge State Aid Decisions Adopted at the End of the Preliminary Phase

Abstract

This contribution analyses the judgments of the Court of Justice [ECJ] in the Kronoply and Kronotex and Deutsche Post and DHL cases. Although they concern different sectors, both cases share a common procedural itinerary. They both have their origin in a decision not to raise objections to a State aid plan adopted by the Commission without opening the formal investigation procedure. Moreover, both decisions were challenged before the General Court [GC] by private applicants with limited locus standi – i.e., by applicants who satisfied the Cook/Matra test of standing but failed to meet the stricter conditions laid down by Cofaz. Finally, the appeal brought before the ECJ in both cases turned on the conditions that need to be satisfied for the Cook/Matra rule of standing to be applicable and on the constraints that the limited locus standi of the applicants imposes on the jurisdiction of the GC.