# C_2010317EN.01002101.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/21

---

Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 1 July 2010 in Case T-64/08 Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA v European Commission

(Case C-450/10 P)

()

2010/C 317/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (represented by T. Salonico, G. Barone and A. Marea, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal (1) and annul the decision (2) in that they find that the contested measure is not in the nature of indemnification or compensation, but instead consider it to be unlawful and incompatible State aid; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal (1) and annul the decision (2) in that they find that the contested measure is not in the nature of indemnification or compensation, but instead consider it to be unlawful and incompatible State aid; and/or

1

2

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it does not hold that the order for recovery contained in the decision conflicts with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, in consequence, annul the decision in so far as it order Italy to take steps forthwith to recover the aid together with interest; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it does not hold that the order for recovery contained in the decision conflicts with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, in consequence, annul the decision in so far as it order Italy to take steps forthwith to recover the aid together with interest; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal is incorrect and must, therefore, be set aside on the following grounds:

| 1. | infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the EC Treaty, contradictory reasoning and manifest error of assessment in that it distorts the clear sense of the evidence produced in relation to the interpretation of the contested measure as being State aid and not as being a measure to compensate the appellant. The General Court erred in interpreting restrictively the legislation and national case-law invoked by the appellant at first instance, which establish that the contested measure does not constitute State aid but has instead continued to pursue the aim of compensation originally envisaged by the Italian legislature in 1962 and recognised by the Commission and the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

1.

infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the EC Treaty, contradictory reasoning and manifest error of assessment in that it distorts the clear sense of the evidence produced in relation to the interpretation of the contested measure as being State aid and not as being a measure to compensate the appellant. The General Court erred in interpreting restrictively the legislation and national case-law invoked by the appellant at first instance, which establish that the contested measure does not constitute State aid but has instead continued to pursue the aim of compensation originally envisaged by the Italian legislature in 1962 and recognised by the Commission and the General Court;

| 2. | infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (3) and contradictory and insufficient reasoning, in so far as the General Court concluded that the order for recovery contained in the decision was not contrary to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court’s judgment is wrong and wants adequate reasoning in so far as it denies that the Commission’s long silence on the explanations offered by the Italian authorities at the end of 1991 concerning the fact that the first extension of the Terni tariff continued to pursue the original aim of compensation was a circumstance capable of engendering a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant with regard to the fact that the extensions of the Terni tariff, including the contested measure, do not constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (3) and contradictory and insufficient reasoning, in so far as the General Court concluded that the order for recovery contained in the decision was not contrary to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court’s judgment is wrong and wants adequate reasoning in so far as it denies that the Commission’s long silence on the explanations offered by the Italian authorities at the end of 1991 concerning the fact that the first extension of the Terni tariff continued to pursue the original aim of compensation was a circumstance capable of engendering a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant with regard to the fact that the extensions of the Terni tariff, including the contested measure, do not constitute State aid.

3

---

(1)  Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union of 1 July 2010 in Case T-64/08.

1

(2)  Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 [now Article 93] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

3

---