# C_2022002EN.01004201.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/42

---

Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Siremar v Commission

(Case T-668/21)

(2022/C 2/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sicilia Regionale Marittima SpA — Siremar (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi Dal Pozzo and A. Moriconi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 June 2021 with respect to Articles 2 and 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 June 2021 with respect to Articles 2 and 3;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 5 and 6 of the decision which order the immediate and effective recovery of the alleged State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 5 and 6 of the decision which order the immediate and effective recovery of the alleged State aid;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU and infringement of the 2004 Guidelines for rescuing and restructuring.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, including with regard to the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it concluded that the rescue aid to Siremar was illegally prolonged for a year and is incompatible with EU State aid rules. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU and infringement of the 2004 Guidelines for rescuing and restructuring.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, including with regard to the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it concluded that the rescue aid to Siremar was illegally prolonged for a year and is incompatible with EU State aid rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU, with reference to the exemptions from payment of some taxes.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the contested tax exemption is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU, with reference to the exemptions from payment of some taxes.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the contested tax exemption is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of good administration as regards the duration of the proceedings, and that the recovery order is unlawful as a result.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the investigation procedure that is being criticised here was excessively long, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and of good administration, as well as to the general principles which are corollary of these. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of good administration as regards the duration of the proceedings, and that the recovery order is unlawful as a result.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the investigation procedure that is being criticised here was excessively long, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and of good administration, as well as to the general principles which are corollary of these.

---