# C_2014052EN.01005102.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/51

---

Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Simet v Commission

(Case T-15/14)

2014/C 52/100

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Simet SpA (Rossano Calabro, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia and P. Clarizia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 6251 final of 2 October 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 62 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — State aid Measure SA.33037 (C/2012) — Italy — Compensation of SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 6251 final of 2 October 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 62 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — State aid Measure SA.33037 (C/2012) — Italy — Compensation of SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003;

| — | 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 present action has been brought against Decision C(2013) 6251 final of the European Commission of 2 October 2013, which states that the payments made to SIMET of the compensation awarded by a judgment of the Italian Consiglio di Stato and notified by the Italian authorities constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and that that State aid was not exempt from prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.

In that regard, SIMET points out that the case giving rise to that judgment of the national court concerned compensation for the damage which it had suffered as a result of the unlawful aspects of measures adopted by the Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) (MIT) with regard to the provision of inter-regional public transport by road between 1987 and 2003.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that:

| 1. | the national legislation, on the basis of which the MIT managed SIMET’s business activity during the period examined by the Consiglio di Stato in its judgment, is incompatible with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which, following the amendments made by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91, prohibited Member States from subjecting businesses which, like SIMET, provide inter-regional bus transport services to individuals to any public service obligations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the national legislation, on the basis of which the MIT managed SIMET’s business activity during the period examined by the Consiglio di Stato in its judgment, is incompatible with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which, following the amendments made by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91, prohibited Member States from subjecting businesses which, like SIMET, provide inter-regional bus transport services to individuals to any public service obligations;

| 2. | contrary to the Commission’s assertions, SIMET was subjected to public service obligations, as the administrative concessionary measures adopted by the MIT for the provision of inter-regional bus passenger transport services, in accordance with the requirements of national legislation, clearly deprived SIMET of any autonomy in carrying on its own business activity as that activity was directly shaped and dictated by the authorities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

contrary to the Commission’s assertions, SIMET was subjected to public service obligations, as the administrative concessionary measures adopted by the MIT for the provision of inter-regional bus passenger transport services, in accordance with the requirements of national legislation, clearly deprived SIMET of any autonomy in carrying on its own business activity as that activity was directly shaped and dictated by the authorities;

| 3. | the principles relating to compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law — on the basis of which, if the authorities of a Member State adopt an administrative measure within their sphere of competence which is contrary to European Union law, those authorities are obliged to pay compensation for any damage suffered by addresses of that measure owing to its unlawfulness — have been infringed; |
| --- | --- |

3.

the principles relating to compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law — on the basis of which, if the authorities of a Member State adopt an administrative measure within their sphere of competence which is contrary to European Union law, those authorities are obliged to pay compensation for any damage suffered by addresses of that measure owing to its unlawfulness — have been infringed;

| 4. | in any event, no State aid was granted to SIMET, as the method — which refers to the criteria set out in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — of determining the amounts to be awarded to it by way of compensation for the road transport service which it provided from 1987 to 2003 and which was made subject to public service obligations is such as to rule out any risk that SIMET might receive surplus compensation, since the compensation being received corresponds only to the additional costs incurred by that company in fulfilling the public service obligations which were imposed on it unlawfully. |
| --- | --- |

4.

in any event, no State aid was granted to SIMET, as the method — which refers to the criteria set out in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — of determining the amounts to be awarded to it by way of compensation for the road transport service which it provided from 1987 to 2003 and which was made subject to public service obligations is such as to rule out any risk that SIMET might receive surplus compensation, since the compensation being received corresponds only to the additional costs incurred by that company in fulfilling the public service obligations which were imposed on it unlawfully.

---