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 62016TN0720

Case T-720/16: Action brought on 10 October 2016 — ARFEA v Commission

OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, p. 32–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.11.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/32

Action brought on 10 October 2016 — ARFEA v Commission

(Case T-720/16)

(2016/C 441/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Aziende riunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) (Alessandria, Italy) (represented by: M. Chiti and V. Angiolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul Commission Decision of 10 June 2016 on State aid SA.38132 (2015/c) (ex 2014/NN) — Additional PSO compensation for ARFEA, and, in so far as necessary, any other related and/or prior acts challenged in these proceedings.

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision declares incompatible with the internal market and orders the recovery of the aid alleged to have been granted by the Italian authorities to the applicant, a private company which supplies local public transport services based on concessions and private transport services as a business activity, as compensation for performance of a public service obligation.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 108(3) TFEU.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the measure contested by the Commission does not constitute State aid. In any event, it is not ‘new’ aid, to which the provision cited refers.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107 TFEU.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the contested measure constitutes compensation for public service obligations imposed on ARFEA in accordance with final judgments of Italian courts, and not ‘State aid’ within the meaning of the TFEU provision cited.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of principles concerning the application of EU law, of general principles of non-retroactivity of legal rules and of legal certainty, and of principles established in the field concerned by the Court of Justice.

—

In that regard, the applicant disputes the application of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the present case, as provided for in the contested decision. The present case, which relates to events which took place in 1997-98, falls under other EU legislation (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/1969).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of principles concerning the limitation of rights.

—

The applicant company submits in that regard that it is challenging the recovery decision in respect of the measure in question 18 years after the facts underlying the case.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles established by the case-law of the Court of Justice defining State aid, and principles concerning the procedural autonomy of the Member States.

—

The applicant company claims in that regard that it intended to demonstrate, in the matter at issue, that the principles established by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00, Altmark Trans and Regierumspräsidium Magdeburg were observed. Furthermore, the company submits that the contested decision has encroached upon an area subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of the rules governing State aid in so far as concerns unilaterally imposed public service obligations.

—

The applicant company claims that the Commission did not take into account the fact that, in the present case, the Piedmont Region imposed a public service obligation upon it, to be compensated using measures not covered by the concept of State aid.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of principles governing the temporal succession of legal rules.

—

The applicant company disputes, from a different angle to that put forward in its plea in point 3, that Regulation No 1370/2007 applies to the present case. The company submits that, in the present case, the Commission did not take into account that the Piedmont Region imposed a public service obligation on it, to be compensated by measures not covered by the concept of State aid.
Top