EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/20

Appeal brought on 17 February 2009 by the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ against the judgment delivered on 28 November 2008 in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v Commission

(Case C-71/09 P)

2009/C 113/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (represented by: A. Vianello, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hotel Cipriani SpA, Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas), Italian Republic, Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl, Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present appeal;

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 November 2008 in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere v Commission of the European Communities, notified on 3 December 2008, and annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EC (1) of 25 November 1999, failing which, annul Article 5 of that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the amount accounted for by the social security relief in question and provides for interest to be applied to that amount in respect of the period in question;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere (‘the Committee’) relies on six pleas in law in support of its appeal.

By the first plea, the Committee maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law, infringing Article 87(1) EC, and failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 253 EC to state reasons. In particular, the judgment under appeal does not adequately examine the compensatory nature of the aid covered by the contested decision or the effects of that aid on the market, failing to state the related grounds, and breaches the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment so far as concerns the examination of the situation of the municipalised undertakings vis-à-vis the applicant undertakings.

By the second plea, the Committee alleges infringement of Article 86(2) EC and, in particular, failure to examine the applicability to the case before it of the derogation relating to the operation of services of general economic interest. By contrast, such an examination was carried out in the case of the municipalised undertakings.

By the third plea, alleging infringement of Article 87(3) EC, the Committee criticises the approach taken in the judgment under appeal so far as concerns the Commission’s absolute discretion regarding the applicability of the derogation relating to regional difficulties and so far as concerns the lack of an adequate examination of circumstances of the case.

By the fourth plea, the Committee alleges infringement of Article 87(3((d) EC and, in particular, criticises the granting to the Consorzio Venezia Nuova of the derogation for ‘cultural’ purposes and the failure to undertake an examination of that aspect in the case of the other undertakings.

By the fifth plea, the Committee criticises the failure to attribute due significance to the continuity between the aid found to be unlawful (introduced after June 1994) and the rules previously in force (as far back as 1973), in breach of Articles 1 and 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC].

By the sixth plea, the Committee criticises the automatic nature of the order for recovery, maintaining that this is in breach of Article 14 of Regulation No 659/99.

(1) 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).

(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.