This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0238
Case C-238/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
Case C-238/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
Case C-238/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
IO C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
IO C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 6–6
(HR)
20.7.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 207/23 |
Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
(Case C-238/13 P)
2013/C 207/36
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Rialto Inn Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)
Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal |
— |
Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:
|
First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature. |
|
Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade. |
|
Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable. |
|
Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable. |
|
Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable. |
|
Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable. |
|
Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) |
|
Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order. |
|
Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest. |
(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).