Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:726
Date: 2013-11-07
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Wam Industriale SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission (Case C-560/12 P) Language of the case: Italian Parties Appellant: Wam Industriale SpA (represented by: E. Giuliani and R. Bertoni, avvocati) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought annul the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, notified on 1 October 2012, in Case T-303/10 concerning an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29); annul, on the grounds set out below, Commission Decision 2011/134/EU by establishing and declaring that the aid referred to in the 1995 contract and in the 2000 contract is compatible with the common market; order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments Breach of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 266 TFEU, manifest error of assessment and - contrary to Article 296 TFEU - a failure to state reasons, in that the European Commission has failed to comply with the judgments of the General Court and of the Court of Justice annulling the European Commission's decision of 19 May 2004, having adopted a new decision concerning the same State aid, even though the annulment of the previous decision did not relate to formal or procedural defects. Breach of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(1) TFEU, Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 2 and Article 296 TFEU, in finding that the alleged State aid came within the scope of Article 108 TFEU, even though it was aid intended for the penetration of non-EU markets; in not having taken into consideration the fact that the alleged State aid in question had been granted pursuant to Italian Law No 394 of 29 July 1981, notified to the European Commission, albeit not in advance, pursuant to Article 108(3) [TFEU]; and in not having taken the view that the aid in question had been implicitly approved within the terms of Articles 2(2) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Breach of Articles 107(3) TFEU and 108(1) TFEU, breach of Regulations (EC) No 800/2008, 4 No 1998/2006,  No 69/2001  and No 70/2001  and - contrary to Article 296 TFEU - a failure to state reasons, in not having regarded the aid in question as constituting an application of a general scheme; in not having classified that aid as compatible aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since the promotion of the internationalisation of businesses would have fostered the development of Community businesses; in having considered the aid to be export aid or aid for export-related activities and not, instead, to be aid intended to promote market penetration in non-EU countries; and in not having placed that aid under the exemption threshold provided for by the de minimis regulations. Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of an incorrect calculation of the grant equivalent. Breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, in having imposed a recovery order in respect of aid which was attributable to the general scheme of 1981, a scheme of which the Commission was aware and which had not been declared unlawful by any European authority. Breach of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and infringement of the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence in that the Commission failed to carry out additional measures of inquiry in order to overcome the shortcomings identified by the Community Courts, and in not having promoted the necessary inter partes discussions with Wam and the Italian authorities. Infringement of the principle of sound administration, the principle of diligence and the duty of care, in that the present dispute has lasted for 17 years from the date on which the first aid measure was granted. ____________ 1 - OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1. 2 - OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3. 3 - OJ 2006 L 379, p. 5. 4 - OJ 2001 L 10, p. 30. 5 - OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33.