This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TA0308
Case T-308/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential rate — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — New aid)
Case T-308/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential rate — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — New aid)
Case T-308/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential rate — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — New aid)
OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 30–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 16/10/2014
- Date lodged:
- 13/06/2011
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Italian
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
24.11.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 421/30 |
Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Eurallumina v Commission
(Case T-308/11) (1)
((State aid - Electricity - Preferential rate - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - New aid))
2014/C 421/40
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: V. Leone, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, agents)
Re:
By way of principal claim, application for annulment, in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2 and 3 of that decision, the latter in so far as an order is made for restitution of the aid granted to the applicant and, in the further alternative, application for annulment of Article 3 of that same decision, again in so far as it concerns the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs. |
