EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/2

Appeal brought on 22 March 2013 by Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperative Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl v European Commission

(Case C-145/13 P)

2013/C 207/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. (represented by: R. Volpe and C. Montagner, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. rl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl, European Commission

Form of order sought

— Uphold the present appeal, — accordingly, set aside the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2013, notified on 24 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, and, consequently, annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999, or, — in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the amount of relief granted from the social security contributions at issue and in so far as it provides that interest is to be added to that amount for the period in question;

— order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its order of 23 January 2013 (‘the order under appeal’), the General Court declared that the action brought by Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC on relief from social security contributions was in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

The first ground of this appeal alleges that no reasons were given for deeming the action before the General Court inadmissible; therefore, paragraph 58 of the order under appeal breaches the general principle that there is a duty to state the reasons on which measures are based and, more specifically, infringes Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The second ground raised by the appellant alleges that there has not been a proper, exhaustive interpretation of Article 87(1) EC (now Article 107(1) TFEU).

It is also alleged that Article 87(1) EC has been infringed in that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as 22 undertakings have been declared exempt from recovery of the aid granted to them on the grounds that they have provided comprehensive reasons for that grant, whereas the appellant has been deemed not to have provided comprehensive reasons for its grant.

The contested order also breaches the principle of non-discrimination, in that it confers legitimacy upon the Commission’s decision by virtue of which recovery of aid under Article 87(1) EC was excluded for municipal undertakings (which the Commission, when implementing that decision, allowed to provide any additional information necessary in order to assess the lawfulness of the aid granted), whereas the appellant was never asked for any supplementary documentation before recovery of the aid was initiated.

In further support of its allegations of infringement of Article 87(1) EC, another part of the appeal also states that the order under appeal does not provide any reasons for finding that the aid granted to the appellant had an effect on intra-Community trade. First the Commission and then the General Court found that the relief in question was unlawful, citing the distortion of intra-Community trade as an element inherent in granting aid to undertakings in the fishing industry, without carrying out any kind of examination of the relevant market or providing any statement of reasons for that finding.

The order under appeal also infringes Article 87(3)(a) EC (now Article 107(3)(a) TFEU), since it has not assessed the conditions for applying the derogation in question to the appellant’s situation. In particular, the standard of living in Chioggia is extremely low, with extraordinary levels of underemployment.

Similarly, the order under appeal infringes Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU), in that it finds that the derogation does not apply to the appellant’s situation, although it has provided no reasons in that regard, and Article 87(3)(d) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) TFEU), in that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, it finds that the derogation which was found applicable to other Venetian undertakings does not apply to the appellant’s situation.

Lastly, it is alleged that the General Court erred in its interpretation regarding the absence of ‘existing aid’, thereby infringing Articles 1, 14 and 15 of Regulation 659/1999. (1) It cannot be denied that the succession of rules in force represents a continuous reduction in social security contributions over a period of several decades.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).