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 62013TN0125

Case T-125/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

IO C 114, 20.4.2013, p. 44–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
04/03/2013
Date lodged:
04/03/2013
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Iodáilis
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

20.4.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/44

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-125/13)

2013/C 114/67

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Decision C(2012) 9448 final of 19 December 2012, notified on 20 December 2012, relating to the capital injections provided by SEA SpA in favour of SEA Handling SpA;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Italian Republic contests the Commission decision declaring that the measures put in place by SEA SpA, the concession-holder responsible for the management of Milan Malpensa and Milan Linate airports, in favour of SEA Handling SpA, the company responsible for the operation of groundhandling services at those airports — measures which, in essence, consist in repeated capital injections to set off operating losses — constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market.

In support of the action, the Italian Republic relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law: breach of the principles of good administration and legal certainty.

—

It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision, which also gives rise rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the aid recipients concerning the legality of the measures, was adopted in breach of the principles of good administration and legal certainty, both because of the excessive duration of the whole procedure, in particular the preliminary investigation, and because of the doubts arising in relation to the findings and approaches adopted by the Commission in the course of that procedure.

2.

Second plea in law: breach of essential procedural requirements, in the form of breach of the right to be heard and failure to undertake adequate preliminary inquiries.

—

It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the parties’ right to be heard and the rights of the defence, as a result of the fact that the Commission extended the scope of the examination to cover a period falling outside the scope of the decision opening a formal investigation.

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts, as well as failure to state adequate reasons for imputing the measures at issue to the public authorities.

—

According to the Italian Republic, the contested decision errs in finding the measures at issue to be imputable to the public authorities and fails, in any event, to provide adequate evidence or sufficient reasoning on that point.

4.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts, as well as failure to state adequate reasons for imputing the measures at issue to the public authorities.

—

It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision errs in finding that SEA’s conduct was not that of a prudent trader in a market economy and fails, in any event, to provide adequate evidence or sufficient reasoning on that point.
Top