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 62021TN0668

    Case T-668/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Siremar v Commission

    IO C 2, 3.1.2022, p. 42–42 (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:
    15/10/2021
    Date lodged:
    15/10/2021
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Iodáilis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú

    3.1.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 2/42

    Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Siremar v Commission

    (Case T-668/21)

    (2022/C 2/58)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant: Sicilia Regionale Marittima SpA — Siremar (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi Dal Pozzo and A. Moriconi, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of 17 June 2021 with respect to Articles 2 and 3;

    —

    in the alternative, annul Articles 5 and 6 of the decision which order the immediate and effective recovery of the alleged State aid;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU and infringement of the 2004 Guidelines for rescuing and restructuring.

    —

    The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, including with regard to the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it concluded that the rescue aid to Siremar was illegally prolonged for a year and is incompatible with EU State aid rules.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU, with reference to the exemptions from payment of some taxes.

    —

    The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the contested tax exemption is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of good administration as regards the duration of the proceedings, and that the recovery order is unlawful as a result.

    —

    The applicant claims in this regard that the investigation procedure that is being criticised here was excessively long, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and of good administration, as well as to the general principles which are corollary of these.
    Top