## Facts

- The Belgian State acquired a significant equity holding in a manufacturing undertaking.
- The European Commission concluded the equity participation constituted State aid incompatible with the common market under Article 92 EEC.
- Acting under Article 93(2) EEC, the Commission adopted a decision ordering Belgium to abolish or alter the aid and to recover it from the beneficiary undertaking.
- Belgium did not bring a timely annulment action against the Commission decision under Article 173 EEC.
- Belgium failed to implement recovery, citing legal and practical constraints under national company-law rules and adverse social and economic consequences.
- The Commission brought infringement proceedings under the second subparagraph of Article 93(2) EEC seeking a declaration that Belgium failed to fulfill its Treaty obligations by not complying with the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether Belgium, having failed to challenge the Commission’s Article 93(2) decision within the Article 173 time limit, could contest the decision’s validity in infringement proceedings brought to enforce it.
2. Whether practical, legal, or socio-economic difficulties short of “absolute impossibility” can excuse non-implementation of a final State-aid recovery decision.
3. What obligations of loyal cooperation apply when a Member State encounters difficulties executing a recovery decision.

## Decision

- The Court held that after the Article 173 time limit expires, the addressee Member State may not contest the validity of a Commission decision in infringement proceedings under Article 93(2).
- The Court held that, in that procedural posture, the only defense available is proof that it was absolutely impossible to implement the decision properly.
- The Court stated that if unforeseen or unforeseeable difficulties arise, the Member State must submit the problems and concrete proposals to the Commission, and both must work together in good faith consistent with the Treaty and State-aid rules.
- The Court declared that Belgium failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing the recovery decision because it did not establish absolute impossibility.

## Legal Principles

- A final Commission State-aid decision that was not timely challenged by an annulment action cannot be attacked collaterally in later enforcement (infringement) proceedings.
- In infringement proceedings enforcing an unchallenged State-aid decision, the Member State’s substantive defense is limited to “absolute impossibility” of proper implementation; mere difficulty, inconvenience, or national-law obstacles are insufficient.
- Under the duty of loyal cooperation, when implementation problems are unforeseen or unforeseeable, the Member State must present the Commission with the difficulties and workable proposals, and both must cooperate in good faith to reach a Treaty-compliant solution that achieves effective recovery.

## Conclusion

The Court enforced the Commission’s recovery decision against Belgium, holding that Belgium could not relitigate the decision’s legality after missing the annulment deadline and that noncompliance is excused only by absolute impossibility, subject to a duty of good-faith cooperation to resolve genuine implementation obstacles.


Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys. v. Belg., Case 52/84, [1986] E.C.R. 89