# C_2019238EN.01001301.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/13

---

Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2019 in Case T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, Italy and Others v Commission

(Case C-425/19 P)

(2019/C 238/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Stancanelli, L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar, D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2019, joined cases
  T-98/16, Italian Republic v European Commission
  T-196/16, Banca Popolare di Bari S.C.p.A. v European Commission
  T-198/16, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2019, joined cases

T-98/16, Italian Republic v European Commission

T-196/16, Banca Popolare di Bari S.C.p.A. v European Commission

T-198/16, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi v European Commission;

| — | dismiss the applications at first instance, in so far as they dispute that the decision at issue shows that the requirements relating to imputability to the State have been met for the measures in question and for their financing through State resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the applications at first instance, in so far as they dispute that the decision at issue shows that the requirements relating to imputability to the State have been met for the measures in question and for their financing through State resources;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the remaining pleas in law at first instance and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the remaining pleas in law at first instance and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the decision at issue on account of the fact that ‘the Commission has not proved to the requisite legal standard that the Italian public authorities were involved in the adoption of the measure at issue or, consequently, that that measure is imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU’ and ‘did not establish sufficiently, in the contested decision, that the resources at issue were controlled by the Italian public authorities and that, therefore, they were at their disposal’.

The Commission considers that the judgment under appeal is based on incorrect legal considerations and distortion of the facts, which irremediably invalidate its findings and the operative part of the judgment. The Commission raises two grounds of appeal:

| — | In the first place, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFUE for two reasons:






  — | the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by requiring the Commission to demonstrate positively the existence of a dominant influence on the part of the public authorities, at every stage of the procedure which led to the adoption of the measures in question, over the entity granting the aid, solely on account of the fact that the latter is a private entity; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the first place, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFUE for two reasons:

—

the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by requiring the Commission to demonstrate positively the existence of a dominant influence on the part of the public authorities, at every stage of the procedure which led to the adoption of the measures in question, over the entity granting the aid, solely on account of the fact that the latter is a private entity;

| — | the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by examining and assessing the various evidence produced by the Commission in the decision at issue piecemeal, without considering it as a whole and without taking into account its broader context. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by examining and assessing the various evidence produced by the Commission in the decision at issue piecemeal, without considering it as a whole and without taking into account its broader context.

| — | In the second place, the findings of the General Court are further vitiated by serious material inaccuracies concerning the facts and the interpretation of the relevant Italian law which are clearly apparent from the case-file. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the second place, the findings of the General Court are further vitiated by serious material inaccuracies concerning the facts and the interpretation of the relevant Italian law which are clearly apparent from the case-file.

---