# C_2021401EN.01001301.xml

| 4.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 401/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 401/13

---

Action brought on 10 July 2021 — Banca Popolare di Bari v Commission

(Case T-415/21)

(2021/C 401/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Banca Popolare di Bari SpA (Bari, Italy) (represented by: A. Zoppini, G. Roberti, I. Perego and G. Parisi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 280 million as compensation for material damage, as well as an adequate amount of compensation for non-material damage, caused by Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1208 of 23 December 2015 on State aid granted by Italy to the bank Tercas (Case SA.39451 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN)); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 280 million as compensation for material damage, as well as an adequate amount of compensation for non-material damage, caused by Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1208 of 23 December 2015 on State aid granted by Italy to the bank Tercas (Case SA.39451 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN));

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s conduct was unlawful






  — | In this regard, the applicant claims that there was an infringement which was sufficiently serious given that, in adopting the decision, the Commission (i) had no margin of discretion, since Article 107(1) TFEU is a provision with direct effect which is precise and unconditional, and (ii) made a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, the Commission relied on insufficient evidence and distorted the case-law of both the General Court (judgment of 19 March 2019, Italy and Others v Commission, T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, EU:T:2019:167) and of the Court of Justice (judgment of 2 March 2021, Commission v Italy and Others, C-425/19 P, EU:C:2021:154). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s conduct was unlawful

—

In this regard, the applicant claims that there was an infringement which was sufficiently serious given that, in adopting the decision, the Commission (i) had no margin of discretion, since Article 107(1) TFEU is a provision with direct effect which is precise and unconditional, and (ii) made a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, the Commission relied on insufficient evidence and distorted the case-law of both the General Court (judgment of 19 March 2019, Italy and Others v Commission, T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, EU:T:2019:167) and of the Court of Justice (judgment of 2 March 2021, Commission v Italy and Others, C-425/19 P, EU:C:2021:154).

| — | The provisions infringed by the decision are provisions which confer rights on individuals; therefore, that decision also infringes the freedom to conduct a business and the fundamental right to sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

The provisions infringed by the decision are provisions which confer rights on individuals; therefore, that decision also infringes the freedom to conduct a business and the fundamental right to sound administration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging material and non-material damage caused to the applicant by the Commission’s unlawful conduct.






  — | In this regard, the applicant claims that, in the absence of other possible concurrent factors, it was the Commission’s decision which was the determining factor that caused the bank’s clients to lose faith in it and occasioned the losses suffered by it: the Commission blocked the plan to integrate Tercas and Caripe and the planned intervention by the Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi (Italian Interbank Deposit Protection Fund; FITD). |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging material and non-material damage caused to the applicant by the Commission’s unlawful conduct.

—

In this regard, the applicant claims that, in the absence of other possible concurrent factors, it was the Commission’s decision which was the determining factor that caused the bank’s clients to lose faith in it and occasioned the losses suffered by it: the Commission blocked the plan to integrate Tercas and Caripe and the planned intervention by the Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi (Italian Interbank Deposit Protection Fund; FITD).

---