Greece
| Author | Th. Jestaedt; J. Derenne; T. Ottervanger |
| Profession | Jones Day; Lovells; Allen & Overy |
| Pages | 263-275 |
Page 263
In accordance with Article 94 of the Hellenic Constitution, in principle, civil courts judge private disputes, whereas administrative courts have competence over administrative disputes, as provided by law. Since the 2001 constitutional revision, however, the question of whether disputes are "private" or "administrative" is a legal one and is not covered by the Constitution itself.
In particular, ordinary administrative courts235 (hereafter, "administrative courts") are, in accordance with Law 1406/83, competent to judge "substantial administrative disputes" but may also be given competence to conduct judicial review of certain enforceable administrative acts, provided that the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat remains the ultimate court of appeal on such cases. Moreover, the 2001 constitutional revision expressly allowed certain categories of private disputes to be judged by administrative courts, and certain categories of administrative disputes by civil courts.
The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat ("Symvoulio tis Epikratias"), which is very similar in function to the French Conseil d'Etat, has powers of judicial review over enforceable regulatory or individual administrative acts (which are not subject to any judicial remedy before other courts) for excess of power, infringement of law, lack of competence or absence of essential procedural requirement.
In addition, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat acts as a Supreme Court of Appeal for irrevocable decisions of administrative courts on grounds of excess of power or infringement of law, and may also judge substantial administrative disputes, if so provided by the Constitution and the relevant laws.
In many cases, an administrative complaint must first be lodged with the administrative authority which issued the act in question and which rejected such complaint, before an action is permissible before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat.
Administrative courts may not only annul but may also amend the administrative act in question, and may judge not only its legality but also its constitutionality. They may not, of course, consider the expediency of the act in question.
As a result, the choice of judicial remedy and the Greek courts' competence in the case of legal action concerning State aid depends not only on the nature of the dispute and the interests and rights involved in each particular case, but also on the nature and extent of judicial review requested.
Page 264
If State aid has been granted in Greece without prior notification to and approval by the Commission, and is therefore in direct infringement of Article 88 (3) EC, one has to consider first which legal form such State aid has taken, i.e. a law, a presidential decree, an administrative decision or a contract between the beneficiary undertaking(s) and the State (public authorities, a legal person belonging to the public sector or a private legal person under the control or influence of the State).
As a rule, State aid in Greece is introduced under legislative provisions adopted by Parliament, or sometimes by administrative decisions that may or may not be subsequently ratified by laws adopted by Parliament.
Examples are Law 2271/1 994 on the restructuring of Olympic Airways, Law 1386/83 on the Organisation for the Economic Restructuring of Undertakings, Law 1892/90 on Modernisation and Development and other provisions (system of regional aid) and Law 1796/88, which ratified Decision E 3789/88 of the Minister of Finance, which had excluded profits relating to exports of undertakings from a special taxation.
Alternatively, State aid may be introduced by ministerial decisions, such as Joint Decision 30512/91 of the Ministers of National Economy, Industry, Energy and Technology on the support of shipbuilding companies and works.
Laws may not be directly challenged by persons whose interests are affected by their provisions, although courts are obliged not to apply unconstitutional laws. A legislative provision endorsed by Parliament may be declared unconstitutional by a competent court only incidentally, where the legality of an administrative act stemming from such a law is challenged before it (incidental control)236.
Individuals affected (including legal persons) may, however, take legal action against ministerial decisions or other administrative regulatory or individual acts which implement the above laws on State aid in specific cases. Examples are the decisions of the Minister of National Economy on the grant of State aid to specific undertakings (under Article 7 (2) of L 1892/90), and the decision of the Minister of Finance, specifying the debts, loans and obligations of Olympic Airways, which were taken over by the Greek State under Law 2271/94.
It is interesting to note, however, that certain aspects of the aid regime on the restructuring of Olympic Airways do not require further enactment by other enforceable administrative acts. An example is the maintenance until 31 December 1995 of the special tax regime granted earlier to Olympic Airways, which could only be incidentally challenged as being unconstitutional.
Page 265
If, however, State aid is granted by an enforceable administrative act (such as a ministerial decision), regardless of whether it implements a law on State aid in a specific case or is issued ad hoc, it may be challenged before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat. The competent chamber thereof may submit the case to the Plenary Session of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat if it considers it to be of general importance, and must do so if it considers a provision to be unconstitutional. Judgments of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat are not subject to further appeal.
On the other hand, if State aid is granted by means of an administrative contract, or if the administrative act refers to taxation or to the collection of public income, such agreement or act may be challenged before the administrative courts, subject to review before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat.
In the past, certain laws relating to State incentives on investment, such as Law Decree 2687/1953 on Investment and the Protection of Foreign Capital, and Law 4171/1961, a law (now repealed) on development and investment, provided that disputes between the State and undertakings relating to the interpretation and eventual omissions of the awarding administrative acts would be settled by arbitration. The jurisprudence of the Hellenic Supreme Court ("Arios Pagos") has so far accepted that arbitration could lead to the recognition of the illegality of administrative acts but not directly to their annulment.
Moreover, civil courts may adjudicate actions relating to State aid awarded by private law undertakings (for example, an action against an act of the Agricultural Bank of Greece, which is a private law bank under State control, providing for the discharge or the favourable settlement of agricultural cooperatives' debt).
On a few occasions, especially in the first few years after the accession of Greece to the EEC, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat rejected claimants' arguments that Article 87 EC was applicable on the grounds that its provisions were of direct effect, without, however, examining at the same time whether the "measure" under consideration could constitute State aid which had not been notified to the Commission or authorised by it, in which case the last sentence of Article 88 (3) EC would be directly applicable (see, in particular, decisions 1093/1987 and 3910/1988, but also 220/2002 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat mentioned in section 3.3 below).
First instance and appeal administrative courts also have jurisdiction over actions for damages (under Articles 105-106 of the Introduction to the Civil Code) against the State and legal persons governed by public law and for illegal acts or omissions of their organs in the exercise of public power. The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat also acts as supreme court of cassation in this case. In accordance with decision 618/2004 of the Greek Supreme Court ("Arios Pagos"), both actions against the State relating to the grant of State aid to an undertaking's productive activity and the resulting actions against the State for damages constitute substantial administrative acts to be judged by administrative courts.
Page 266
In order to introduce an action for damages against the State, the following special conditions apply:
* The illegal acts or omissions of State organs, against which the action for damages is lodged, must have taken place in the exercise of public power;
* Compensation is possible only if the illegal State acts or omissions in question do not infringe provisions adopted in the common interest;
* The State is not liable for compensation for damage caused by laws adopted by Parliament, unless such laws contain a provision contrary to, or are judged by the courts to infringe, the Constitution or EU law, provided that the lesser law infringes a person's right which is directly protected by the superior law;
* The deadline for bringing an action for damages against the State is five years, starting from the end of the financial year during which the relevant claim has arisen and during which it was possible to lodge an action before the courts thereon (Articles 90-94 of Law 2362/1995)237.
An action for damages has already been brought against the National Drug Organisation and the Greek State for the infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC (see Decision 5110/1994, Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, reported in the Review of Social Insurance Law /1994 (621) (E)).
In this case, the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens held that the State, legal entities of the public sector and local authorities are liable for the acts or omissions of their organs which, although in compliance with a formally adopted Greek law, contravene a law of superior force, such as the Constitution or EC law, provided that the lesser law infringes a person's right which is directly protected by the superior law. Although in this case the Court upheld the locus standi of the claimant, it rejected its action on the grounds of lack of evidence.
A person challenging an enforceable administrative act before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat may request the Court to suspend its execution by issuing a reasoned decision238. Injunction proceedings before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat are crucial in the case of State aid granted in contravention of Article 88 (3) EC because this Court may take a long time to issue a judgment.
Page 267
Injunction proceedings are also available before an administrative court where an administrative agreement has already been challenged, or a substantial administrative dispute is pending judicial control.
The lodging of an action before an administrative court does not itself suspend the effects of an administrative act, unless otherwise provided for by law239.
Nevertheless, the competent administrative court, acting on the claimant's specific application, may order suspension of the implementation of the challenged administrative act only if, as a result of the enforcement thereof, the claimant might suffer material or moral damage, which would be irreparable or might only be redressed with difficulty.
An injunction may not be granted by administrative courts in the case of negative administrative acts or omissions, or if public interest or the normal functioning of the Public Administration may be affected240.
To the best of our knowledge, no interim measures have so far been ordered by the Greek courts to safeguard third parties' interests in the context of actions pending which concern State aid granted without prior notification (for example, by ordering the freezing or return of moneys illegally paid).
Nevertheless, in the case leading to Decision 89/2002 of the Suspensions Committee of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat, the claimant requested the suspension of the execution of a ministerial decision, against which it had lodged an action before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat. This ministerial decision had revoked the submission of the claimant company's business plan under the provisions of Law 1892/1990 and had requested the reimbursement by such company of a State grant. The claimant alleged, inter alia, that the Administration had infringed Article 88 (3) EC in deciding that its failure to notify the Commission of the submission of the above business plan (under the State aid system introduced by Law 1892/1990) obliged it to revoke such aid. This and the other grounds for suspension of the execution of the administrative act were rejected by the Suspensions Committee of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat as being obviously unfounded.
Under Greek law, an enforceable administrative act granting State aid to a specific recipient in contravention of Article 88 (3) EC may be challenged by a competitor of the recipient whose legal interests are directly, individually and presently affected by such act.
To be classified as a competitor, it is sufficient to prove that one is engaged in an activity similar to that of the relevant recipient.
Page 268
Although a collective action by professional associations or other collective professional institutions is also possible, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat may require that the administrative act which is challenged does not favour certain members of the professional institution in question241.
Creditors of the recipient of State aid granted in contravention of Article 88 (3) EC may also challenge a relevant administrative act since it may affect their legal interests (for example, by creating an ultimately false image of the creditworthiness of the beneficiary concerned or by suspending measures of forfeiture or confiscation against an ailing beneficiary undertaking) (see Decision 3910/1988 of the 4th Chamber of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat).
However, actio popularis is not recognised in this context.
If the Commission issues a negative decision declaring aid incompatible with the EC, the Member State in question, i.e. Greece, must, as the case may be, either abolish or alter or refuse to grant the unauthorised aid.
Under these circumstances, interested third parties may challenge the compatibility of such aid with Article 87 (1) EC before the Greek courts once this provision has been applied by a specific decision of the Commission under Article 88 (2) EC. The courts of competent jurisdiction are those described under sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.
Beneficiary undertakings, which are requested to reimburse aid illegally granted, have locus standi to challenge the relevant administrative act. They also have locus standi to request damages where they can establish extraordinary circumstances justifying a legitimate expectation, within the limits established by the ECJ, in the legality of the administrative act, which awarded them such aid in the first place. A preliminary question may be addressed to the ECJ in this respect242. In this case, the Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki held that the course of action above would be open to the claimant, but that it did not have to rule on it.
In Decisions 1957/1999, 1916/2002, 1917/2002, 1918/2002 and 1335/2002, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat had to rule on whether Article 78 (2) of the Greek Constitution was infringed by the retroactive revocation of a tax exemption concerning the export activity of Greek undertakings while this tax exemption was found by a Commission decision (which was confirmed by a judgment of the ECJ) to constitute illegally granted State aid. This constitutional provision prohibits the retroactive application of taxation or financial charges beyond the year during which they are imposed and could allegedly invalidate the legislative provision by which the exemption of the export activity of Greek undertakings from the relevant tax had been revoked. The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat, however, ruled that the initialPage 269 provision exempting the export activity of Greek undertakings from taxation had been invalid from the start (as contrary to Article 87 (1) EC) and therefore the imposition of the tax payment to the Greek undertakings which were initially exempted from it did not constitute an infringement of a constitutional provision.
Existing State aid was, in theory, considered to be immune from actions by interested third parties before domestic courts as being incompatible with the Treaty, unless the Commission had taken a negative decision under Article 88 (2), which never has retroactive effect.
Following Salt Union v Commission243, State aid cleared by a positive decision of the Commission may be challenged by competitors and other interested parties before the competent Hellenic courts if, for instance, there is evidence that such aid has been granted in a specific case in contravention of a general aid scheme approved by the Commission.
Moreover, the relevant administrative acts may be challenged before the competent Hellenic courts244 on other grounds unrelated to EC law, such as for infringement of the relevant domestic law or for excess of power.
No Greek case law exists so far on actions brought before Hellenic courts challenging the grant of State aid which has been authorised by the Commission.
618/ 2004 of the Supreme Court ("Arios Pagos") ()
1916/2002, 1917/2002 & 1918/2002 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat ("Symvoulio tis Epikratias") (B)
1335/2002 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (B)
220/2002 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (H/D)
89/2002 of the Suspensions Committee of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (A)
1957/1999 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (B)
150/1999 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (D)
5110/1994 of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens (B/G/E)
3910/1988 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (D)
Page 270
3905/1988 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (D)
1093/1987 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat (D)
The Legal Council of State ("Nomiko Symvoulio tou Kratous"), which is a State advisory body giving legal advice to the State sector, has given opinions 441/1994 and 438/2003 on issues involving the EC law on State aid.
Facts and legal issues: A Greek firm had assigned to a Greek bank its claim for State aid relating to the production of fruit juices. The Greek State, however, paid to the assignee bank only part of the State aid and set off the remaining part with a sum equal to that due by the beneficiary firm to the Organisation of Social Security ("IKA"). The Greek bank had already lodged an appeal before the Nafplion Appeal Court, which had ordered the payment by the State of the whole amount of the assigned claim to the bank.
Decision: In this decision, the Arios Pagos, which is the Greek Civil Supreme Court, quashed the judgments of the inferior civil courts for lack of competence. It held that actions of undertakings against the State relating to the grant of State aid to an undertaking's productive activity, and the resulting actions against the State for damages, constitute substantial administrative acts to be judged by administrative courts because they refer to grants emanating from public bodies and have as their object the service of a public interest.
Comments: The only interest of this judgment lies in the clarification it offers on the competence of administrative courts in matters of State aid.
Facts and legal issues: In 1988, a decision of the Minister of Finance, later ratified by law, imposed an extra charge on the profits of undertakings, exempting, however, their profits from export activity. The Commission had considered that this exemption constituted illegal State aid to the undertakings with an export activity which infringed Article 88 (3) EC and was not compatible with the Common Market in accordance with Article 87 (1) EC. It therefore requested in its Decision 89/659/EEC245 that the Greek State revoke the State aid by collecting the part of the exempted charge. Further, the Commission brought an action before the ECJ on the basis of Article 88 (2) EC, second subparagraph, and the ECJ, by its judgment of 10 June 1993246, ruled that Greece did not comply with the above Commission decision without there being any valid reason of impossibility to execute such decision, and thus infringed its Treaty obligations. In view of the above developments, Greece has subsequently introduced a legislative provision which has retroactively replaced the initialPage 271 ministerial decision and has revoked the initial exemption from the extra tax on profits relating to exports to EEC Member States.
In all of these judgments, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat had to rule, as a supreme court of appeal regarding previous decisions of the administrative courts, on whether Article 78 (2) of the Greek Constitution was infringed by the retroactive revocation of a tax exemption concerning the export activity of Greek undertakings, while this tax exemption was found by a Commission decision (which was confirmed by a judgment of the ECJ) to constitute illegally granted State aid. This constitutional provision prohibits the retroactive application of taxation or financial charges beyond the year during which they are imposed and could allegedly invalidate the legislative provision by which the exemption of the export activity of Greek undertakings from the relevant tax had been revoked.
Decision: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat, however, ruled that the initial provision exempting from taxation the export activity of undertakings had been invalid from the start (as contrary to Article 87 (1) EC) and therefore the imposition of a tax payment to the Greek undertakings which were initially exempt from it did not constitute an infringement of a constitutional provision.
Comments: It is very positive that in all of the above judgments, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat did not hesitate to uphold the constitutionality and the validity of provisions imposing the reimbursement of illegal aid as a result of the enforcement of a negative Commission decision.
Facts and legal issues: The claimant undertaking argued that the award of a public supply tender to companies other than itself, allegedly offering the same prices as those offered by the claimant, constituted State aid contravening Article 87 EC.
Decision: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat rejected the above claim on the grounds that the provisions of Article 87 EC do not have direct effect.
Comments: Irrespective of the merits of this action, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat failed to examine whether such measure could constitute State aid which had not been notified (see also comments regarding case 1093/1987 in section 3.9 below).
Facts and legal issues: In this case, the claimant requested the suspension of the execution of a ministerial decision against which it had lodged an action before the Hellenic
Conseil d'Etat. This decision had revoked the submission of the complainant company's business plan under the provisions of law 1892/1990 and had requested the reimbursementPage 272 by the claimant of a State grant. The claimant claimed, inter alia, that the administration had infringed Article 88 (3) EC by deciding that its failure to notify the Commission of the submission of the above business plan (under the State aid system introduced by Law 1892/1990) obliged it to revoke such aid.
Decision: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat rejected the above and the other grounds for suspension of the execution of the administrative act as being obviously unfounded.
Comments: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat did not allow the suspension of the execution of a ministerial decision imposing the reimbursement by the claimant of a State grant which, in the view of the Greek State, infringed Article 88 (3) EC and thus facilitated the reimbursement thereof.
Facts and legal issues: The claimant claimed that a ministerial decision authorising the capitalisation of an undertaking's debt to its creditors should be annulled as contrary to the provisions of Article 87 EC.
Decision: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat did not uphold the above claim. It held that this claim could be relevant only against a previous ministerial decision247 which, however, had been subject to the court's scrutiny, and action against it had already been rejected by its Decision 1400/1987.
Comments: See also Decision 1093/1987 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat in section 3.9 below.
Facts and legal issues: An action for damages was brought against the National Drugs Organisation and the Greek State for the infringement of Articles 86 and 87 EC. The claimant was a "société anonyme" engaged in the trade of imported drugs and was obliged to pay to the National Drugs Organisation a charge used by the National Drug Organisation to finance two State companies with business in the area of pharmaceuticals.
Decision: In this case, the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens held that the State, legal entities of the public sector and local authorities are liable for the acts or omissions of their organs which, although in compliance with a formally adopted Greek law, contravene a law of superior force, such as the Constitution or EC law, provided that the lesser law infringes a person's right which is directly protected by the superior law. Although in this case the Court upheld the locus standi of the claimant, it rejected its action on the grounds of lack of evidence. In particular, the Court held that a 15% charge on the wholesalePage 273 price of drugs used by the National Drug Organisation to finance two State companies engaged in business in the area of pharmaceuticals did not infringe Articles 86 and 87 EC because no evidence had been submitted by the claimant to prove that competition and trade between Member States had been affected as a result of such measure.
Comments: It is important that the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens recognised the liability of the State, legal entities of the public sector and local authorities to pay damages to competitors of a beneficiary of State aid if the relevant EC provisions were infringed. Moreover, it is positive that the same Court also examined the existence of State aid in the case under consideration. However, important evidence on market shares and turnovers of the beneficiary undertakings was lacking and the existence of the State aid in question was not established.
Facts and legal issues: In this case, the claimant claimed that a ministerial decision, which had authorised the provisional suspension of payment of overdue debt by an undertaking in financial difficulty, infringed the provisions of Article 87 EC.
Decision: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat rejected the above claim on the grounds that the provisions of Article 87 EC were not of direct effect.
Comments: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat failed to examine, however, whether such measure could constitute State aid which had not been notified. See comments in similar case 1093/1987 in section 3.9 below.
Facts and legal issues: An action on the grounds of EC State aid law provisions was brought before the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat against a ministerial decision refusing to license a "société anonyme" to operate a pharmaceutical storehouse. The relevant legislation in force (Law 517/1968 and Law 328/1976) did not allow the operation of a pharmaceutical storehouse by a "société anonyme", whereas this was allowed to two State companies dealing with the import, export and trade of pharmaceutical goods in order to serve general social interests. The claimant argued that the ministerial decision and the underlying legislation infringed the provisions of Articles 87 et seq. EC.
Decision: Such action failed to succeed because the Conseil d'Etat ruled that the claimant did not prove that the cross-border trade had been affected as a result of such ministerial decision.
Comments: On the whole, the Greek courts hesitate to uphold the prima facie existence of State aid on the basis of lack of necessary evidence.
Page 274
Facts and legal issues: An action was brought by shareholders of an important Greek paper manufacturer who, on the grounds of an infringement of Article 87 EC, requested the annulment of a ministerial decision by which an undertaking had been submitted to the special regime provided by Law 1386/83 on the Institution for the Restructuring of Enterprises (OAE).
Decision: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat rejected the above action, stating that the provisions of Article 87 EC cannot be directly applied by the national court but are only applied with the procedure of Article 88 EC, which concerns the relations between the Member States.
Comments: The Hellenic Conseil d'Etat came to the above conclusion without first checking whether the submission of the undertaking in question to the special regime provided by Law 1386/83 on the Institution for the Restructuring of Enterprises (OAE) constituted, at least in part, State aid to this undertaking. If this was the case, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat should have examined whether the aid regime provided by the above law had been notified to the Commission and had been authorised by it. Further, if it was found that the notification procedure of Article 88 (3) had not been complied with, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat could then have applied the EC Treaty State aid provisions.
Although the Legal Council of State is not a court of justice but a State advisory body giving legal advice to the State sector, its legal opinions 441/1994 and 438/2003 on issues involving the EC law on State aid constitute a positive element, assisting in the correct application of EC State aid law in Greece.
a) Legal opinion 438/2003 of the Legal Council of State
The Legal Council of State advised the Greek State that it should legally request the reimbursement by Olympic Airways of the restructuring State aid found to be incompatible with the Common Market by Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 February 2002248, in accordance with Article 87 EC.
b) Legal opinion 441/1994 of the Legal Council of State
The Legal Council of State provided sound legal advice on when the participation in the increase of an undertaking's share capital constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
Page 275
It is clear from the preceding list of case law that the Greek courts did not have many opportunities in the past to consider the application of the Community State aid legal regime on Greek State aid. In the first years after Greece's accession to the EEC mainly, but also later on, the Greek courts used to limit such examination on the grounds that the provisions of Article 87 do not have direct effect. The Greek courts did not, however, seem to examine in all cases whether the "measures" in question each time could constitute prima facie State aid which had not been notified to the Commission or had not been authorised by it, in which case the last sentence of Article 88 (3) EC, which has direct effect, would be applicable (Decisions 1093/1987 and 3910/1988, but also 220/2002 of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat).
Nevertheless, on the positive side, the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat did not hesitate to uphold the constitutionality and the validity of provisions imposing the reimbursement of illegal aid as a result of the enforcement of a negative Commission decision in a series of its judgments (1916/2002, 1917/2002, 1918/2002,1335/2002 and 1957/1999).
Equally important is the recognition by Greek case law of locus standi for claiming damages against the State, legal entities of the public sector and local authorities in the area of State aid, when they are found liable for acts or omissions of their organs which, although in compliance with a formally adopted Greek law, contravene a law of superior force such as EC law, provided that the lesser law infringes a person's right which is directly protected by the superior law (Decision 5110/1994 of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens).
Finally, the legal opinions of the Legal Council of State on issues of State aid have contributed positively to the correct application of EC State aid law in Greece. However, the Greek lawyers' awareness of the procedural and substantive State aid EC law provisions remains limited and this is reflected also in the relevant court decisions.
------------------------------------
[235] Ordinary administrative courts are all first instance and appeal administrative courts, with the exception of the Hellenic Conseil d'Etat.
[236] An action for damages is, however, possible under certain conditions. See section 2.3 below.
[237] For recent case law, see decision 878/2004 of the Supreme Court ("Arios Pagos").
[238] Article 52 of Presidential Decree 18/1989.
[239] Article 31 of Presidential Decree 341/78.
[240] Article 31 of Presidential Decree 341/78.
[241] Declaration 4256/79.
[242] Decision 5024/1995, Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, reported in Diikitiki Diki/1996 (1039) (E, G).
[243] Case T-330/94, Salt Union v Commission [1996] ECR II-1475.
[244] See sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.
[245] Commission Decision 89/659/EEC (OJ (1989) L 394/1).
[246] Case C-183/91, Commission v Hellenic Republic [1993] ECR I-O3131.
[247] In accordance with this ministerial decision, the undertaking in question had been put under the temporary management of the Institution for the Economic Restructuring of Enterprises ("OAE").
[248] 0J (2003) L132/1.
