# C_2007095EN.01005203.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/52

---

Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission

(Case T-70/07)

(2007/C 95/106)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (Termoli, Italy) (represented by: B. Daniela Mammarella, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application is directed against the Commission's decision of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy is planning to implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli S.p.A (No C 48/2004 (ex No 595/2003)) (1), by which it classed as State aid not compatible with the common market the operating aid, provided for in Article 3 of the Shipbuilding Regulation (2), that Italy planned to give the applicant in respect of Ship C.180 (ex C.173), and forbade the 10-month extension of the ship's delivery limit, on the ground that the causes of the delays invoked by the applicant (the impact of the events of 11 September 2001 in New York, the need for technical modifications, the occurrence of natural disasters) failed to satisfy the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the Shipbuilding Regulation.

1

2

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

| (a) | Procedural defect, in the form of an insufficient statement of reasons in respect of the following findings:






  — | that the events of 11 September had no causal link with the present case: by contrast with the cruise ship shipbuilding sector, the shipbuilding sector in which the applicant is active — that is to say, the petro-chemical tanker shipbuilding sector — was found to have suffered no disruption on account of those events; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

Procedural defect, in the form of an insufficient statement of reasons in respect of the following findings:

—

that the events of 11 September had no causal link with the present case: by contrast with the cruise ship shipbuilding sector, the shipbuilding sector in which the applicant is active — that is to say, the petro-chemical tanker shipbuilding sector — was found to have suffered no disruption on account of those events;

| — | that it has not been shown that the natural disasters which struck the territory in which the applicant is active played a causal role; |
| --- | --- |

—

that it has not been shown that the natural disasters which struck the territory in which the applicant is active played a causal role;

| — | the findings concerning the need to introduce technical modifications to the construction. |
| --- | --- |

—

the findings concerning the need to introduce technical modifications to the construction.

| (b) | Manifest error in the assessment of the facts adduced by way of evidence, confirmed by the Italian State, of the disruption of the programme of works, including the unwarranted distinction drawn between chemical markets and other shipping sectors for the purposes of applying the Community legislation in question, as well as the biased interpretation of the November 2003 report from the Clarkson Research Institute — moreover, an interpretation in the abstract and out of context — to which decisive importance was attributed, without practical checks being carried out and substantiated by documentary evidence. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Manifest error in the assessment of the facts adduced by way of evidence, confirmed by the Italian State, of the disruption of the programme of works, including the unwarranted distinction drawn between chemical markets and other shipping sectors for the purposes of applying the Community legislation in question, as well as the biased interpretation of the November 2003 report from the Clarkson Research Institute — moreover, an interpretation in the abstract and out of context — to which decisive importance was attributed, without practical checks being carried out and substantiated by documentary evidence.

| (c) | Misuse of powers, given the failure to determine, on the basis of facts and by reference to the characteristics and circumstances of the individual case, whether the requested extension of only 10 months was likely to affect trade between Member States, and thus to assess the compatibility of the operating aid with the competition rules of the Community. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Misuse of powers, given the failure to determine, on the basis of facts and by reference to the characteristics and circumstances of the individual case, whether the requested extension of only 10 months was likely to affect trade between Member States, and thus to assess the compatibility of the operating aid with the competition rules of the Community.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 28.12.2006, p. 53.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1).

2

---