Case T-41/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito Centrale 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

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’;

C 109/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

and all other consequential expenses.

interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
the interest prescribed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— In any event:

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

make all further consequential orders or such further
orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.

Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-42/02)

(2002/C 109/115)

(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 Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Primarily:

— (1)

annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities of 11 December 2001;

(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Alternatively:

(1)

(2)

annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
incompatible with the common market;

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering
the recovery of the aid granted together with interest
from the date on which the aid became available;

— In the further alternative:

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 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-44/02)

(2002/C 109/116)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges
currency
exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
AG by Article 3 of that decision;

for

annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,
in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,

— order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance.