16.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/8

—

set aside paragraphs 50, 81 to 90 and 92 of the judgment under appeal and consequently that judgment in its entirety;

—

give final judgment in the matter and annul the contested decision; and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present appeal and of the action before the General Court.

1.

There was a serious distortion of evidence in relation to the erroneous conclusion in the contested decision, upheld by the General Court, that the measure introduced changes to the substance of the Alumix tariff, as established by the 1995 Decree, and, consequently, there was a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty. The General Court, in paragraphs 81 to 83 of the judgment under appeal, misread the provisions applicable to the present case, in particular, Article 15.2 of Resolution No 204/99 of the Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas (Italian Electricity and Gas Authority), which shows clearly and unequivocally that — even after the introduction of the compensation component — the Alumix tariff did not undergo any substantive change either in respect of the net electricity price paid by Alcoa or in respect of the financing of the mechanism which guaranteed that supply price for Alcoa.

2.

The General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU, was inconsistent with the judgments handed down in Cases T-332/06 and C-149/09 P and seriously distorted point (b) of Alcoa’s first plea, regarding the Commission’s finding that it was not necessary to conduct any economic analysis to demonstrate that the measure granted an economic advantage to Alcoa. The General Court erred in its judgment in so far as (i) it was inconsistent with previous judgments handed down on the same question (T-332/06 and C-194/09 P); (ii) when applying Article 107(1) TFEU, it confused two criteria, both necessary to prove the existence of aid, inferring that an advantage was conferred on Alcoa from the mere finding that the resources used were of State origin; (iii) it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons in so far as it failed to observe that the Commission had erred in assuming that Alcoa had obtained an advantage from the measure and had not, therefore, to that end, carried out a proper economic analysis to calculate the extent of the advantage in this particular case.

3.

The General Court committed a procedural error in that it misrepresented and distorted Alcoa’s second plea and consequently failed to adjudicate and to provide an adequate statement of reasons. The General Court erred in giving a ruling on a point which was not raised by Alcoa at first instance, whereas that court completely failed to address the point of substance put forward by Alcoa, namely, that, even in the event that an economic advantage had been found to exist, which is not accepted, the method used by the Commission to calculate the size of the benefit was erroneous, which resulted in an overestimation of the amount of aid to be recovered.