Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:859
Date: 2011-12-21
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Appeal brought on 17 August 2009 by Iride SpA, formerly AMGA SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-300/02 AMGA v Commission (Case C-329/09 P) Language of the case: Italian Parties Appellant: Iride SpA, formerly AMGA SpA (represented by L. Radicati di Brozolo and T. Ubaldi, avvocati) Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought setting aside of the judgment in Case T-300/02 for distortion of the evidence in the file and error in the legal conclusions drawn by the Court of First Instance from that evidence in so far as it declares that the contested decision 1 is not of individual concern to Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua S.p.A. (AMGA) and that the action brought by the latter in Case T300/02 is inadmissible; a declaration that action brought in Case T300/02 is admissible and an order referring the case back to the Court of First Instance to be dealt with on its merits, as provided for by Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; an order that the Commission should pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of its appeal, Iride puts forwards a single ground of appeal, concerning distortion of the evidence in the file and an error in legal conclusions drawn by the Court of First Instance from incorrect findings made in the judgment, as provided for in Article 230(4) EC and the relevant Community case-law. In Iride's opinion, in particular, the Court of First Instance distorted the clear sense of the evidence that the Company produced for it to evaluate in order to confirm the treatment of AGMA as an actual recipient of individual aid granted under the scheme at issue, recovery of which had been ordered by the Commission. Because of that distortion of the evidence in the file, therefore, the Court of First Instance drew the incorrect inference that the contested decision was not of individual concern to the Company and that its action was, consequently, inadmissible. ____________ 1 - Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).