EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/25

Action brought on 12 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-77/14)

2014/C 102/35

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and Α. Μarcoulli, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not taking within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of the aid which was held to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, in accordance with Article 1 of the Commission Decision (1) of 13 July 2011, Ε (2011) 4916 final, concerning Aluminium of Greece SA (No SA.26117 — C 2/10, ex NN 62/09) or in any event by not fully informing the Commission of the measures taken, in accordance with Article 4 thereof, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the Commission’s action is the failure of the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Commission’s decision in relation to the unlawful State aid granted to the company Aluminium SA, which has to be recovered by the Public Power Corporation (PPC).

The Commission points out that Greece was obliged to ensure compliance with the decision within four months following the date of its notification. The decision was notified on 14 July 2011 and the Commission has not granted any extension for compliance with the decision. Consequently, the period for compliance formally expired on 14 Νοvember 2011.

The Commission emphasises that in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the only justification that may be put forward by a Member State in an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is that it is absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision.

However, in this case, the Greek authorities have not put forward the argument that implementation is absolutely impossible. On the contrary, from the outset they expressed their willingness to implement the decision as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that as of the date on which this action was lodged, they have not taken any steps that would constitute even partial implementation of the decision.

Further, the Commission observes that by virtue of a decision of the First-Instance Court of Athens, the order for payment of the amount of the aid which PPC obtained against Aluminium SA was suspended. In the opinion of the Commission, the national court in question, when suspending enforcement of the payment order, did not take into account the conditions laid down in the Court’s settled case-law governing suspension of enforcement of a national measure adopted in implementation of European Union law. (2)

The Commission considers that Greece has not undertaken the required action to secure compliance with the decision either in accordance with the solution which was discussed by the Commission’s staff and the competent Greek authorities or by any other appropriate means.

(1) OJ L 166 of 27 June 2012, pp. 83-89.

(2) Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 of 21 February 1991Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Case C-465/93 of 9 November 1995Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others.