Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:130
Date: 2006-02-23
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;State aids;Competition
Concepts: Formal investigation procedure;General;Commission decision following the formal investigation procedure;Regional aid;Damage to competition and effect on trade;Existing aid and new aid;Beneficiaries of the aid to be recovered;Rules on competition;Aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

summary of the case-law may be found, inter alia, in Castillo Blanco, F.A., La protección de la confianza en el Derecho administrativo, Marcial Pons, Madrid, 1998, pp. 163 to 199. 87 – See, inter alia, Schwarze, J., op. cit., p. 949 et seq.; Parejo Alfonso, L., and others, op. cit., pp. 76 to 78; and Rodríguez Curiel, J.W., ‘Principios generales del derecho y recuperación de ayudas de Estado ilegales. En especial la confianza legítima’, Gaceta Jurídica, No 209, September/October 2000, pp. 33 to 36. 88 – Case C-177/90 [1992] ECR I-35, paragraph 14. 89 – Pescatore, P., ‘Les principes généraux du droit en tant que source du droit communautaire’, Rapport du 12e congrès de la Fédération internationale pour le droit européen, vol. I, Paris, 1986, p. 35. 90 – This principle, which has been upheld by the Court of Justice, is contained in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, which entered into force after the Decision was published. 91 – In this respect, see Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 49. 92 – Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P Demesa and Territorio Histórico de Álava v Commission [2004] ECR I-10609, paragraph 44, which cites the judgments in Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 14, Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission, paragraph 51, and Case C-24/95 Alcan Deutschland [1997] ECR I-1591, paragraph 25. 93 – Demesa and Territorio Histórico de Álava v Commission, paragraph 45, which, in turn, refers to the judgment in Alcan Deutschland, paragraphs 30 and 31. 94 – Case C-91/01 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4355, paragraph 66, which refers to the judgment in Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission, paragraph 53, and the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-126/99 Graphischer Maschinenbau v Commission [2002] ECR II-2427, paragraph 42. 95 – Fastenrath, U., ‘Verwaltungsrecht. Europarecht’, Juristenzeitung, 1992, p. 1081. 96 – Pernice, I., ‘Neues zum EG-Beihilfenverbot’, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 1992, p. 66, urges recipients of subsidies to check whether they have been notified and whether procedures have been initiated in accordance with Article 88(3) EC; he also recommends that Member States check whether any aid remains unnotified. The Commission itself drew attention to the precarious situation of unnotified subsidies in a Communication published in OJ 1983 C 318, pp. 3 and 4. 97 – Case C-298/00 P [2004] ECR I-4087. 98 – Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 establishes a period of limitation within which the Commission may validly exercise its powers in relation to the recovery of aid. 99 – Case 52/69 Geigy v Commission [1972] ECR 787, paragraphs 20 and 21, and Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 140. 100 – Case 223/85 [1987] ECR I-4617. 101 – The unusual nature of the situation was highlighted in Case C-334/99 Germany v Commission [2003] ECR I-1139, paragraph 44. As regards commentary on the matter, see Götz, V., ‘Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts’, H. III, Subventionsrecht, marginal No 108, p. 34. 102 – Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307 (‘Boussac’), paragraph 19 et seq. This was followed by the judgments in Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-959 (‘Tubemeuse’), paragraphs 15 to 20, Case C-354/90 Fédération nationale du commerce extérieur des produits alimentaires and Syndicat national des négociants et transformateurs de saumon [1991] ECR I-5505, paragraph 13, and Case C-39/94 SFEI and Others [1996] ECR I-3547, paragraph 43. 103 – Boussac gives the Commission time in which to consider the matter and to carry out investigations before initiating the formal procedure (paragraph 27). 104 – Case 323/82 [1984] ECR 3809, paragraph 17. 105 – Case 173/73 [1974] ECR 709. 106 – If this were not the case, following the example given by the Commission in its observations, reliance on the rules governing contracts in the 1942 Civil Code would mean that the measures were in force at that time. 107 – Case C-249/02 [2004] ECR I-10717. 108 – Case 131/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 905, paragraph 37. 109 – Case 18/57 Nold KG v High Authority [1959] ECR 41, and subsequent judgments. 110 – Case C-350/88 Delacre and Others [1990] ECR I-395 and Case C-22/94 Irish Farmers Association and Others [1997] ECR I-1809. 111 – Case 70/72 [1973] ECR 813, paragraph 23. 112 – Joined Cases 296/82 and 318/82 [1985] ECR 809. 113 – Calvo Caravaca, A.L., and Carrascosa González, J., op. cit., p. 231. 114 – Joined Cases 2/62 and 3/62 [1962] ECR 425. In its interpretation of the list set out in Annex I to the Treaty, the Court of Justice held that ‘[i]t follows from Article [32](2) that the derogations allowed in the case of agriculture from the rules laid down for the establishment of the common market constitute measures which are exceptional in nature and must be narrowly interpreted’. 115 – Judgment in Case 34/70 [1970] ECR 1233. 116 – Case C-73/03, not published in the ECR. 117 – Case C-278/00 [2004] ECR I-3997. 118 – The representatives of the claimants in the main proceedings informed the hearing that the aid fluctuated on average between approximately EUR 5 000 and 10 000 per recipient. 119 – In this respect, Case C-73/03 Spain v Commission, the Court held that ‘there is no doubt that it is a very competitive sector in the European Union’ (paragraph 29). 120 – Of the most recent case-law, see Case C-351/98 Spain v Commission [2002] ECR I-8031, paragraph 74; Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-1487, paragraph 93; and Greece v Commission, paragraph 97, which relies on the judgment in Case C-456/00 France v Commission [2002] ECR I-11949, paragraph 41. 121 – See, inter alia, Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany [1983] ECR 2633, paragraph 19, and the judgments referred to therein. 122 – Case 52/84 Commission v Belgium [1986] ECR 89, paragraph 16. 123 – In Case C-110/02 [2004] ECR I-6333, which refers to the judgments in Case C-350/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-699, paragraphs 21 and 22, and Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraphs 98 and 99. 124 – For a history of the case-law relating to this issue and an account of how it first arose, see Alonso García, R., La responsabilidad de los Estados miembros por infracción del Derecho comunitario, Civitas, Madrid, 1997. For a general, critical analysis, see García de Enterría, E., ‘El principio de protección de la confianza legítima como supuesto título justificativo de la responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado legislador’, Revista de Administración Pública, September–December 2002, pp. 173 to 206. 125 – In point 74 of the Opinion in Belgium v Commission (Case C-197/99 P [2003] ECR I-8461) Advocate General Léger pointed out that ‘nationally, several significant consequences may flow from a finding that State aid is illegal’, such as the fact that the beneficiary of the aid or his competitors may bring an action for damages against the State, as Advocate General Tesauro had already warned in the final paragraph of point 7 of the Opinion in Tubemeuse. 126 – See Keppenne, J.-P., Guide des aides d’État en droit communautaire, Bruylant, Brussels, 1999. 127 – Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 [1996] ECR I-1029, paragraph 51.