# C_2004262EN.01004602.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/46

---

Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Wam SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-316/04)

(2004/C 262/88)

Language of the case: Italian

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 2004 against the Commission of the European Communities by Wam SpA, represented by Ernesto Giuliani, lawyer.

The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul Decision C(2004) 1812 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 19 May 2004 concerning State aids granted by Italy to Wam SpA between 1995 and 2000, which Wam SpA considers and states to be compatible with the common market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2004) 1812 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 19 May 2004 concerning State aids granted by Italy to Wam SpA between 1995 and 2000, which Wam SpA considers and states to be compatible with the common market;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments adduced in support:

Following a complaint by the Morton Machine Co Ltd, the Commission decided to commence a formal investigation procedure, as provided for by Article 88(2) EC concerning two cases of subsidised financing granted by Italy to Wam SpA between 1995 and 2000. In the contested decision, the Commission decided to classify those measures as State aid and declared them to be in breach of article 87 EC and thus incompatible with the common market.

In support of its claims, the applicant states:

| — | that the Commission infringed the general principles of impartiality, autonomy, independence, fairness and propriety in the exercise of its functions, having treated the complaint from Morton Machine Ltd in a non-objective manner and having rejected, in that context, and without stating its reasons for doing so, the proposal from Wam SpA that it should repay the difference between the open market interest rate paid by Wam SpA when the individual instalments were disbursed and the interest charged on the two amounts of subsidised financing at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission infringed the general principles of impartiality, autonomy, independence, fairness and propriety in the exercise of its functions, having treated the complaint from Morton Machine Ltd in a non-objective manner and having rejected, in that context, and without stating its reasons for doing so, the proposal from Wam SpA that it should repay the difference between the open market interest rate paid by Wam SpA when the individual instalments were disbursed and the interest charged on the two amounts of subsidised financing at issue;

| — | that the Commission infringed, or misapplied, Article 87 EC by considering to be incompatible with the common market, in so far as they were liable to distort competition in intra-Community relations, aids granted to Wam SpA notwithstanding the absence of any competitive relationship between Wam SpA and Morton Machine Ltd, since Wam SpA did not produce or market industrial mixers and Wam Engineering Ltd was not a subsidiary of Wam SpA, an independent company which has its registered office in England and is governed by English law; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission infringed, or misapplied, Article 87 EC by considering to be incompatible with the common market, in so far as they were liable to distort competition in intra-Community relations, aids granted to Wam SpA notwithstanding the absence of any competitive relationship between Wam SpA and Morton Machine Ltd, since Wam SpA did not produce or market industrial mixers and Wam Engineering Ltd was not a subsidiary of Wam SpA, an independent company which has its registered office in England and is governed by English law;

| — | that the Commission infringed Article 88(2) EC by treating as illegal State aid granted to Wam SpA in implementation of an Italian law, namely Law No 394 of 29 July 1981, which the Commission had declared to be compatible with Community law, or, that it infringed the Community principle of legal certainty, since it did not adopt any legislation regarding any need far action to achieve market penetration in countries outside the EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission infringed Article 88(2) EC by treating as illegal State aid granted to Wam SpA in implementation of an Italian law, namely Law No 394 of 29 July 1981, which the Commission had declared to be compatible with Community law, or, that it infringed the Community principle of legal certainty, since it did not adopt any legislation regarding any need far action to achieve market penetration in countries outside the EU.

| — | that the Commission infringed, or misapplied, Articles 87 and 88 EC by taking the view that it had not been notified of the legal basis for the aids disbursed, and by considering them to be incompatible with the common market simply because of non-notification, and not on the basis of a proper substantive assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission infringed, or misapplied, Articles 87 and 88 EC by taking the view that it had not been notified of the legal basis for the aids disbursed, and by considering them to be incompatible with the common market simply because of non-notification, and not on the basis of a proper substantive assessment;

| — | that the Commission infringed Article 87 EC and Article 2(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 69/2001 by classifying as export aid, and as such outside the scope of the de minimis rules, aids that were not linked to a specific quantity of exported products but were simply used for an attempt to achieve market penetration outside the EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission infringed Article 87 EC and Article 2(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 69/2001 by classifying as export aid, and as such outside the scope of the de minimis rules, aids that were not linked to a specific quantity of exported products but were simply used for an attempt to achieve market penetration outside the EU.

The applicant also alleges, in several respects, breach of the duty to state the reasons on which measures are based, and also the principles of justice, equity and sound administration.

---