Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility — Extent of its discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-22)

2. State aid — Concept — Measures designed to compensate for structural disadvantages borne by undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included — Adverse effect on competition — State measures designed to approximate the conditions of competition, in a given economic sector, to those prevailing in other Member States — Not permissible (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 28, 29)

3. State aid — Commission decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Limits (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 31, 32, 35)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme in its general characteristics — Lawfulness — Low amount of aid and beneficiary undertakings carrying on business at local level — Aid likely to affect intra-Community trade and entail a distortion of competition — Irrelevant (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 35-37)

5. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid for the development of particular areas — Exclusion of operating aid save in exceptional circumstances — No infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and legal certainty (Art. 87(3)(c) EC ; Commission Notices 88/C 212/02 and 98/C 74/06) (see paras 48-50)

6. State aid — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Diligent and impartial examination of the complaints — Assessment of the legality of the Commission’s decision by reference to the information available at the time it was adopted — Duty of diligence of the Member State granting the aid and of its recipient as regards notification of all relevant matters (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 54, 57)

7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Obligation on the Commission sufficiently to describe the individual situation of each beneficiary — Possibility of leaving to the national authorities the task of determining without excessive difficulty the undertakings concerned (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 63, 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

2. The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. Alfredo Barbini Srl, Aureliano Toso Srl, AVMazzega Srl, Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl, Carlo Moretti Srl, Effetre SpA, Ferro & Lazzarini Srl, Formia Srl, Gino Cenedese & Figlio, La Murrina, Mazzuccato International Srl, Nason & Moretti Srl, Tfz Internazionale Srl, V. Nason & C. Srl, Venini SpA, Vetreria de Majo Srl, and Vetreria LAG Srl, in addition to bearing their own costs, are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.