Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CN0587

    Case C-587/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission

    OJ C 63, 2.3.2013, p. 11–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.3.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 63/11


    Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission

    (Case C-587/12 P)

    2013/C 63/18

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

    set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, served on 3 October 2012, in Case T-257/10 Italian Republic v Commission concerning an action seeking annulment under Article 264 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2010 (C(2010) 1711 final) relating to State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002), notified by letter of 25 March 2010 (SG Greffe (2010) D/4224), and as a consequence also annul that decision;

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Grounds of appeal and main arguments

    The Italian Republic puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.

    First, it alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and of Articles 4, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 20 of Regulation (EC) 659/99. (1) The General Court erred in accepting that the Commission could, in this case, adopt a new decision without opening a fresh investigation procedure in the course of which the Italian Republic and the interested parties were given an opportunity to make known their views.

    Second, it pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of the principle of the authority of res judicata. The General Court should have annulled the Commission’s new decision in so far as it reproduced the same, incorrect, assessment which had already formed the basis of the first decision.

    Third, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 1(1)(d) and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006. (2) The General Court erred in holding that the contested measures were not among the measures which, under that regulation, do not constitute State aid.

    Fourth, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 and is in breach of the principle of proportionality. The General Court erred in omitting to take note of the fact that the Commission’s decision required recovery of an advantage from which the undertaking had in actual fact never benefited.


    (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

    (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p, 5).


    Top