# C_2005132EN.01001301.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that court of 22 October 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato v Spa Lucchini Siderurgica

(Case C-119/05)

(2005/C 132/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) (Italy) of 22 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato and Spa Lucchini Siderurgica on the following questions:

| 1. | In the light of the principle of the primacy of immediately applicable Community law, in the form in this case of general ECSC Decision No 3484 of 1985, the Commission decision of 20 June 1990, notified on 20 July 1990, and Commission decision No 5259 of 16 September 1996, requiring the recovery of aid — which all formed the basis for the recovery measure challenged in the present proceedings (namely Decree No 20357 of 20 September 1996 overturning Decrees Nos 17975 of 8 March 1996 and 18337 of 3 April 1996) — is it legally possible and compulsory for the national administrative authority to recover aid from a private recipient even though a final civil judgment has been delivered confirming the unconditional obligation to pay the aid in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the principle of the primacy of immediately applicable Community law, in the form in this case of general ECSC Decision No 3484 of 1985, the Commission decision of 20 June 1990, notified on 20 July 1990, and Commission decision No 5259 of 16 September 1996, requiring the recovery of aid — which all formed the basis for the recovery measure challenged in the present proceedings (namely Decree No 20357 of 20 September 1996 overturning Decrees Nos 17975 of 8 March 1996 and 18337 of 3 April 1996) — is it legally possible and compulsory for the national administrative authority to recover aid from a private recipient even though a final civil judgment has been delivered confirming the unconditional obligation to pay the aid in question?

| 2. | Or, in view of the generally accepted principle that decisions on the recovery of aid are governed by Community law but the implementation thereof and the associated recovery procedure, in the absence of Community provisions on the matter, is governed by national law (regarding which principle see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany), is the recovery procedure rendered legally impossible by virtue of a specific judicial decision that has become res judicata (Article 2909 of the Civil Code), thereby being conclusive as between the private individual and the administration, and requires the administration to comply with it? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Or, in view of the generally accepted principle that decisions on the recovery of aid are governed by Community law but the implementation thereof and the associated recovery procedure, in the absence of Community provisions on the matter, is governed by national law (regarding which principle see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany), is the recovery procedure rendered legally impossible by virtue of a specific judicial decision that has become res judicata (Article 2909 of the Civil Code), thereby being conclusive as between the private individual and the administration, and requires the administration to comply with it?

---