# C_2020378EN.01004602.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/46

---

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission

(Case T-601/20)

(2020/C 378/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tirrenia di navigazione SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene and F. Rossi Dal Pozzo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision with respect to Article 1(3); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with respect to Article 1(3);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision which orders recovery of the alleged aid, which is to be immediate and effective; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision which orders recovery of the alleged aid, which is to be immediate and effective;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 1108 final of 2 March 2020 on the State aid No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99) implemented by Italy for the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group), in so far as, in Article 1(3), it declares the aid granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and, in Article 2, orders Italy to recover the aid from the beneficiary.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural matters connected to the limitation period for recovery of the aid held to be unlawful and incompatible.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that by its decision the defendant infringed Article 17 of the rules of procedure (Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), according to which the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. The applicant maintains that that limitation period has been exceeded. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural matters connected to the limitation period for recovery of the aid held to be unlawful and incompatible.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that by its decision the defendant infringed Article 17 of the rules of procedure (Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), according to which the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. The applicant maintains that that limitation period has been exceeded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the rules regarding State aid, misclassification of the aid as new, unlawfulness of the decision which declares the State aid new and incompatible, and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons and to observe the principle of proportionality.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for public service obligations (PSOs) granted to Adriatica as new aid. According to the applicant, the funding for the public service obligations assumed by Adriatica is part of an aid scheme that was created in 1936 and the subsequent amendments to that aid scheme have not affected its very nature, causing it to become a new aid scheme. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the rules regarding State aid, misclassification of the aid as new, unlawfulness of the decision which declares the State aid new and incompatible, and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons and to observe the principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for public service obligations (PSOs) granted to Adriatica as new aid. According to the applicant, the funding for the public service obligations assumed by Adriatica is part of an aid scheme that was created in 1936 and the subsequent amendments to that aid scheme have not affected its very nature, causing it to become a new aid scheme.

| — | Moreover, the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for PSOs granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market. The defendant maintains that the incompatibility of the aid granted to Adriatica results from the involvement of the latter, during that period, in a price-fixing agreement for the tariffs for commercial vehicles on the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for PSOs granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market. The defendant maintains that the incompatibility of the aid granted to Adriatica results from the involvement of the latter, during that period, in a price-fixing agreement for the tariffs for commercial vehicles on the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route.

| — | With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant maintains that the defendant did not sufficiently fulfil its obligation to state reasons in accordance with the requirements resulting from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested decision is therefore vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons preventing the General Court from conducting a review of legality. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant maintains that the defendant did not sufficiently fulfil its obligation to state reasons in accordance with the requirements resulting from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested decision is therefore vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons preventing the General Court from conducting a review of legality.

| — | The applicant also alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration regarding the duration of proceedings, and relevance, in the present case, of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that, overall, the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision was of an excessive duration and, therefore, failed to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration. In addition, the duration of the proceedings led the applicant to believe that the measures concerning it were not capable of being classified as new and incompatible State aid. The applicant therefore maintains that the defendant could not order recovery of the aid because this would be contrary to a general principle of EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration regarding the duration of proceedings, and relevance, in the present case, of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that, overall, the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision was of an excessive duration and, therefore, failed to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration. In addition, the duration of the proceedings led the applicant to believe that the measures concerning it were not capable of being classified as new and incompatible State aid. The applicant therefore maintains that the defendant could not order recovery of the aid because this would be contrary to a general principle of EU law.

---