Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2004/217/31

    Case C-285/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Oristano by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

    OJ C 217, 28.8.2004, p. 17–17 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.8.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 217/17

    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Oristano by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

    (Case C-285/04)

    (2004/C 217/31)

    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Oristano (Italy) of 14 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612/EC (1) having regard to the following defects:

    (a)

    lack of competence on the part of the Commission to adopt the contested decision in infringement of the combined provisions of Article 36 EC;

    (b)

    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure provided for under Article 88(1) EC;

    (c)

    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;

    (d)

    failure to state reasons for the decision in application of the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1) EC;

    (e)

    infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’;

    (f)

    breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

    (1)  OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.

    Top