EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CJ0319
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011.#ACEA SpA v European Commission.#Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of 'aid' - Article 88 EC - Concept of 'new aid' - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons.#Case C-319/09 P.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011.
ACEA SpA v European Commission.
Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of 'aid' - Article 88 EC - Concept of 'new aid' - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons.
Case C-319/09 P.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011.
ACEA SpA v European Commission.
Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of 'aid' - Article 88 EC - Concept of 'new aid' - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons.
Case C-319/09 P.
European Court Reports 2011 -00000
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2011:857
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 – ACEA v Commission
(Case C-319/09 P)
Appeal – State aid – Aid granted to public utilities – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Locus standi – Legal interest – Article 87 EC – Concept of ‘aid’ – Article 88 EC – Concept of ‘new aid’ – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 1 and 14 – Lawfulness of a recovery order – Duty to state reasons
1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 54-59)
2. Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Commission decision on the recovery of State aid (see paras 67-69)
3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 82)
4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 114-116)
5. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order to support the operative part – Plea in law ineffective (see para. 120)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑297/02 | ACEA | v | Commission | by which that court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21). |
Operative part
|
The Court: |
1. |
Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal; |
2. |
Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal; |
3. |
Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal; |
4. |
Orders Iride SpA to pay its own costs. |