Case T-39/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Intesabci Spa against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), bank, control of State aid, sanction (EU)

C 109/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay compensation for the
damage, to be quantified or in such sum as the Court
shall think fit, caused to Alitalia by the first decision and
the conditions imposed thereby and by the fact of that
measure having been reproduced by means of the second
decision;

— order the Commission to pay interest on the amount
referred to above for the period up to the date of
payment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Alitalia, the same applicant as in Cases
T-296/97 (1) and T-301/01 (2), is seeking an order requiring
the defendant to pay compensation for the damage allegedly
caused by Commission Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997
concerning the recapitalisation of the applicant company and
by the conditions imposed thereby, which it claims to have
been reproduced, following the annulment of that first decision
by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July
2000 in the abovementioned Case T-296/97, by Decision
2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001.

Sanpaolo IMI spa, represented by Alberto Santa Maria, Claudio
Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and Marcello Valenti,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or
lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
the EC Treaty in conjunction with
Article 253 of
Articles 87 and 77 and with Council Regulation
No 659/1999, as expounded in the application;

— alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
or (c) of the EC Treaty, as expounded in the application;

— in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event
that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible
with the common market, rule that the contested decision
of the Commission cannot have any retroactive effect;

— subject to the reservation of all rights.

The pleas of illegality are the same as those advanced in the
abovementioned cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in
Case T-296/97 Alitalia v Commission [2000] ECR II-3871.
(2) Case T-301/01 Alitalia v Commission (OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002,

p. 24).

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.

Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Sanpaolo
IMI spa against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-37/02)

(2002/C 109/111)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Intesabci
Spa against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-39/02)

(2002/C 109/112)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca
Intesabci Spa, represented by Alberto Santa Maria, Claudio
Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and Marcello Valenti,
lawyers.

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/59

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

(2)

(3)

annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or
lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
the EC Treaty in conjunction with
Article 253 of
Articles 87 and 88 and with Council Regulation
No 659/1999;

alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
or (c) of the EC Treaty;

in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event
that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible
with the common market, exempt the private benefici-
aries of such aid from having to reimburse the same and,
in any event, rule that the contested decision of the
Commission cannot have any retroactive effect, thus
annulling certain parts of the contested decision on the
grounds that
the Commission failed to exercise its
investigatory power in a reasonable way and/or failed
to give sufficient reasons, alternatively infringed the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
and/or proportionality and/or legal certainty within the
meaning of Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.

Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca di Roma
spa against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-40/02)

(2002/C 109/113)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca di
Roma spa, represented by Franco Gallo and Gabriele Escalar,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
European Communities which is contested in these
proceedings;

— alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities which is contested in these
proceedings in so far as it requires Italy to ‘adopt all
necessary measures to recover the aid granted from the
recipients thereof’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

and all other consequential expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.

Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito
Centrale spa against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-41/02)

(2002/C 109/114)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito
Centrale spa, represented by Franco Gallo and Gabriele Escalar,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
European Communities which is contested in these
proceedings;

— alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities which is contested in these
proceedings in so far as it requires Italy to ‘adopt all
necessary measures to recover the aid granted from the
recipients thereof’;