This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CB0323
Case C-323/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Intervention — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Selective nature of the measure — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(ii) — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)
Case C-323/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Intervention — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Selective nature of the measure — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(ii) — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)
Case C-323/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Intervention — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Selective nature of the measure — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(ii) — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)
IO C 63, 19.2.2018, p. 2–2
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 07/12/2017
- Date lodged:
- 08/06/2016
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Béarla
- Type of procedure:
- Breithiúnas a tugadh tar éis an cás a tharchur ar ais, Achomharc - neamh-inghlactha, Achomharc - gan bhunús, Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62016CO0323
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
19.2.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 63/2 |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission
(Case C-323/16 P) (1)
((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Intervention - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Selective nature of the measure - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(ii) - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))
(2018/C 063/02)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, L. Philippou and A. Stratakis, Solicitors)
Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Grasso, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission, (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the order
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal. |
|
2. |
Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal. |
|
3. |
Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
|
4. |
Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
