2005/315/EC: Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002 (notified under document number C(2004) 3893)Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2004-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, natural disaster

L 100/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.4.2005

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 October 2004

on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by
natural disasters in 2002

(notified under document number C(2004) 3893)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/315/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
establishing the European
Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article
88(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to
their comments,

Whereas:

I. PROCEDURE

On 6 and 29 March 2003 the Commission received two
complaints concerning the prolongation of Law No 383
of 18 October 2001 in certain municipalities in Italy
seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002.

for

On 20 March 2003 the Commission asked the Italian
authorities
information on the extension. After
requesting on 2 and 21 May 2003 that the deadline
for replying be extended, the Italian authorities replied
on 10 June 2003. A second letter from the Italian autho-
rities reached the Commission on 4 July 2003.

As the aid scheme entered into force before receiving the
preliminary approval of the Commission under Articles
87 et seq. of the Treaty, the aid scheme was entered in
the register of non-notified aid under number NN 58/03.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal
the European Union (2) and interested parties were
of
invited to submit their comments.

By letter of 23 October 2003,
the Italian authorities
asked for an extension of the deadline for submitting
their comments. By letters of 5 November and 16
December 2003, the Commission respectively agreed to
the request and sent a reminder.

Italy sent its comments by letter of 18 February 2004,
received on 23 February, and by letter of 10 September
2004, received on 15 September. No comments were
received from interested third parties.

II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID SCHEME

Legal basis

Article 5(e) of Decree-Law No 282 of 24 December
2002,
converted into statute by Law No 27 of
21 February 2003, prolongs the benefits provided for
in Article 4(1) of Law No 383 of 18 October 2001
seriously
solely for
affected by natural disasters in 2002. It was clarified by
the Italian Economics and Finance Ministry in Revenue
Agency Circular No 43/E of 31 July 2003. The munici-
palities concerned are those located in the areas defined
in:

investing in municipalities

firms

— the Prime Ministerial Decree of 29 October 2002
laying down provisions relating to the declaration
of a state of emergency in respect of the serious
effects caused by the eruption of Mount Etna and
the earthquakes in the province of Catania,

By letter of 17 September 2003,
the Commission
informed Italy of its decision to initiate the procedure
under Article 88(2) of
the
measure in question. The case was registered under
number N 57/2003. The Commission decision to

the Treaty in respect of

— the Prime Ministerial Decree of 31 October 2002
laying down provisions relating to the declaration
of a state of emergency in respect of the serious
earthquakes on 31 October 2002 in the province
of Campobasso,

(1) OJ C 42, 18.2.2004, p. 5.

(2) See footnote 1.

20.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 100/47

— the Prime Ministerial Decree of 8 November 2002
laying down provisions relating to the declaration
of a state of emergency caused by the earthquakes
of 31 October 2002 in the province of Foggia,

According to the Circular in question, in the other cases
the aid is intended only for firms located on the access
routes or in the buildings concerned by the abovemen-
tioned measures.

— the Prime Ministerial Decree of 29 November 2002
on the provisions relating to the declarations of a
exceptional
state of
weather
Liguria,
in
Lombardy, Piedmont, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia
and Emilia-Romagna.

caused by
and mudslides)

emergency
(flooding

the

(8)

(9)

It was also necessary in the municipalities in question to
issue evacuation orders or orders banning traffic on the
main access routes into the municipalities.

The Commission learnt from press articles that a list of
the municipalities affected by the exceptional weather in
Friuli-Venezia
Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont, Veneto,
Giulia and Emilia-Romagna was drawn up by the Prime
Ministerial Order of 28 May 2003, published in Italian
Official Gazette No 126 of 3 June 2003.

(10)

The measure prolonging Law No 383 of 18 October
2001 entered into force on 23 February 2003, the day
following publication of Law No 27 of 21 February
2003 in Ordinary Supplement No 29 to Italian Official
Gazette No 44 of 22 February 2003.

(13)

Form and intensity of the aid

The measure in question prolongs Law No 383 of
18 October 2001 until the second tax year following
that in progress on 25 October 2001 and is confined
to investments made up to 31 July 2003. Under the Law,
the part of the investments carried out after 1 July 2001
and corresponding to 50 % of the investments exceeding
the average level of investment in the preceding five years
can be offset against taxation of the income of firms and
the self-employed. Calculation of the average level does
include investments made in the year in which
not
investment was highest.
real estate
investment, the extension applies to investments made
up until the third tax year following the one taking in
25 October 2001 and no later than 31 July 2004.

In the case of

Objective of the scheme

(14)

The scheme is designed to promote investment in new
industrial plants and new buildings, extensions, reno-
vating and modernising existing establishments,
in
completing suspended work and in purchasing new
equipment.

Objective

(11)

The scheme is designed to promote investment in the
areas affected by the natural disasters listed in the Prime
Ministerial Decrees referred to in paragraph 7.

(15)

Recipients

III. DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE UNDER
ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY

(hereinafter

investigation
In the decision to initiate the formal
procedure
the
procedure), the measure in question was examined to
check whether
it could be exempted under Article
87(2)(b) as aid intended to make good the damage
caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.

the decision to initiate

the

that

(12) Any firm in any sector that has invested in the munici-
palities affected by the natural disasters
is eligible.
Revenue Agency Circular No 43/E of 31 July 2003
specifies
is designed to promote
investments by firms which, because of the serious diffi-
culties caused by the natural disasters in the municipa-
lities in which they are located, have directly or indirectly
suffered financial damage. It also states that such damage
is deemed to have affected most of the firms in a given
municipality only if:

scheme

— the number of buildings affected by the evacuation
orders is such as to have a negative effect on the
economy of the entire municipality,

— the orders banning traffic affects all the main access

routes into the municipality.

(16)

aid (3),

to Commission Regulation

The Commission also considered whether the measure
qualifies for the derogations in Article 87(3)(a) and/or
(c) of the Treaty pursuant to the guidelines on national
regional
(EC)
No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small
and medium-sized enterprises (4) (SMEs) and to the rules
laid down in the Community guidelines on State aid in
the agriculture sector (5) and to the rules laid down in the
guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries
and aquaculture (6).

(3) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9.
(4) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 364/2004 (OJ L 63, 28.2.2004, p. 22).

(5) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 2.
(6) OJ C 19, 20.1.2001, p. 7.

L 100/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.4.2005

Analysis of the measure as aid to make good the
damage caused by natural disasters

(17) As regards the derogation under Article 87(2)(b) of the
Treaty, the Commission expressed doubts when initiating
the procedure as to whether the aid was intended solely
to make good the damage caused by the natural disasters
in question, to the exclusion of any overcompensation
for damage at the level of individual recipients. It was
unable therefore to authorise the measure as aid to make
good the damage caused by the natural disasters or any
other exceptional occurrences.

(18)

(19)

The Italian authorities did not quantify the direct material
damage caused by the natural disasters. They explained
that the scheme is based on a macroeconomic concept of
damage, justifying this approach by the impossibility of
quantifying damage at the level of each firm without
slowing down the procedure and making it ineffective.

Thus,
the
in its decision initiating the procedure,
Commission considered that the information provided
by the Italian authorities did not
the
measure under examination was, by virtue of its nature
and operational arrangements, designed to make good
damage caused by the natural disasters. It was unable
to conclude from the operational arrangements that:

suggest

that

— the aid recipient is a firm that has suffered damage,

— the damage was caused exclusively by the natural
the Prime Ministerial

disasters
decrees referred to in paragraph 7,

listed in one of

— the aid for the firm is confined solely to making good
the damage caused by the natural disasters, to the
exclusion of any overcompensation for the damage
incurred by an individual recipient. The non-existence
of a link between the aid and the damage suffered by
the firm can also be demonstrated by the fact that, in
view of the operational arrangements for the scheme
in question, a firm that has suffered damage as a
result of the natural disasters might not qualify for
the scheme. A firm that carries out an investment
geared solely to making good the damage caused
by the natural disasters
in question might not
qualify for the aid if the value of the investment is
lower than the average for the investments made in
the preceding five years. What is more, a firm that
carries out an investment geared solely to making
good the damage caused by such natural disasters
but records losses in the current year might not
qualify either for the scheme in the same year.

Analysis of the measure as investment aid

(20) As regards the admissibility of the derogations in Article
87(3)(a) and/or
the Commission
considered in its decision initiating the procedure
whether the measure could qualify for exemption as
investment aid.

the Treaty,

(c) of

(21) As

regards

the derogations,

the Commission first
expressed doubts as to whether the aid available under
the scheme is granted solely in areas eligible for regional
aid under the Italian regional aid map for the period
2000 to 2006. It also doubted whether:

— the concept of investment defined in the scheme is
that provided for in point 4.4 of the guidelines on
national regional aid and in Article 2(c) of Regulation
(EC) No 70/2001,

— the aid intensity under the scheme, which should be
calculated by reference to all the items of expenditure
making up the standard base, as defined in point 4.5
of
the guidelines on national regional aid and in
Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001,
complied with the regional ceilings specified in the
Italian regional aid map for the period 2000 to 2006
or the aid intensities laid down in Article 4(2) of
Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 for SMEs,

— the rules on the cumulation of aid in points 4.18 to
4.21 of the guidelines for national regional aid and in
Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 had been
complied with,

— the principle of the necessity of aid referred to in
point 4.2 of the guidelines on national regional aid
and in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 had
been met,

— in order to ensure that the productive investment
aided is viable and sound, the recipient’s contribution
to its financing is a least 25 %, as provided for in
point 4.2 of the guidelines on national regional aid
and in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001,

— the rules laid down in the Community guidelines on
State aid in the agriculture sector and in the
guidelines
the examination of State aid to
fisheries and aquaculture had been complied with.

for

20.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 100/49

IV. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ITALY

(27)

(22)

In its reply to the decision initiating the procedure, Italy
sent further information together with its comments, the
main points of which are summarised below.

in several
The Italian authorities also pointed out that,
cases, the Commission had authorised aid to assist the
recovery of a particular sector or to offset more indirect
forms of damage.

Comments on the analysis of the measure as aid to
make good the damage caused by natural disasters

(28)

(23)

that

The Italian authorities pointed out
the territory
concerned by the measure comprises the municipalities
listed in the Prime Ministerial Decrees of 29 October,
31 October and 8 November 2002. Under Article 1 of
the Decree of 29 October 2002, aid was to be granted
solely in the municipalities affected by flooding and in
which evacuation orders or orders banning traffic on the
main access routes had been issued. The municipalities
were listed in Prime Ministerial Order No 3290.

They confirmed by letter of 10 September 2004 that the
measure was based on a macroeconomic approach,
although firms would be asked to present certificates or
statements in order to verify the actual damage suffered
by each recipient. The tax authorities could subsequently
carry out the necessary checks. The certificates would
have to contain evidence that the firm was entitled to
receive aid on account of its location in an eligible area.
The firms would also have to certify that the aid did not
exceed the damage suffered and that there was no over-
compensation.

(24) As regards the doubts as to whether the aid recipients
were firms that had suffered damage and whether such
damage had been caused exclusively by a natural disaster,
the Italian authorities replied that damage was deemed to
have affected most of the taxpayers in a given munici-
pality only if:

Comments on the measure as investment aid

(29) As regards the analysis of the compatibility of the aid
with the derogations in Article 87(3)(a) and/or (c) of the
Treaty carried out in the manner described in paragraph
16 of this Decision, the Italian authorities commented
only that the areas concerned by the measure had been
identified directly and exclusively by reference to the
natural disasters.

— the number of buildings affected by the evacuation
orders was such as to have a negative effect on the
economy of the entire municipality,

— the orders banning traffic affected all the main access

routes into the municipality.

(30)

They pointed out that the compatibility of the aid should
be assessed in the light of Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty,
i.e. as aid intended to make good the damage caused by
natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.

The Italian authorities therefore concluded that the main
aid recipients were indeed firms that had suffered damage
and whose place of business was located along the roads
or
in the buildings affected by the abovementioned
evacuation orders.

(31)

By letter of 10 September 2004, the Italian authorities
the aid should be regarded as
also commented that
compatible with the common market by virtue of that
derogation and that this therefore obviated the need to
conduct a further analysis in the light of other dero-
gations or guidelines.

Furthermore, as regards the link between damage suffered
and aid granted, the Italian authorities considered that the
Treaty did not rule out the possibility of taking account
of the overall damage in a given area. The scheme was
based on a macroeconomic concept of damage level as
the demands of efficiency and speed did not allow the
damage to each firm to be assessed individually. The
Italian authorities therefore used macroeconomic data
to demonstrate that the budget allocated to the scheme
was much smaller than the extent of the damage.

(32)

V. ASSESSMENT

Aid element of the measure

In order to assess whether the measures provided for in
the scheme constitute aid within the meaning of Article
87(1) of the Treaty, it is necessary to determine whether
they confer an advantage on the recipient, whether the
advantage
the
measures in question affect competition and whether
they are liable to affect intra-Community trade.

conferred by the State, whether

is

(25)

(26)

L 100/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.4.2005

(33)

(34)

(35)

The first requirement for the applicability of Article 87(1)
of the Treaty is the possibility that the scheme confers an
advantage on certain specific recipients. It must therefore
be determined whether the recipients enjoy an economic
advantage they would not have obtained under normal
market conditions or whether they avoid costs which
would normally have been borne by the firm’s financial
resources, and whether this advantage is conferred on a
specific category of firm. The possibility of setting off
part of the investment against tax confers an economic
advantage on the recipients since their taxable income
and hence the amount of
income are
reduced compared with what the firm would normally
have had to pay. In addition, the aid is available to such
firms as operate and, in particular, invest in specific areas
of Italy and favours them since it is not granted to firms
outside those areas.

tax on that

The second requirement for the applicability of Article
87 is that
the aid must be granted by the State or
through State resources. In the present case, the use of
State resources takes the form of revenue forgone by the
public authorities: the reduction in income tax reduces
the tax revenue accruing to the State.

The third and fourth requirements for the applicability of
Article 87(1) of the Treaty are that the aid distorts or
threatens to distort competition and that it be liable to
affect trade between Member Sates. In the present case,
competition by
threaten to distort
the measures
strengthening the financial position and freedom of
action of the recipient firms compared with competitors
who do not qualify. If that effect makes itself felt in intra-
Community trade, then trade between Member States is
affected. In particular, such measures distort competition
and affect trade between Member States if the recipients
export part of their production to other Member States;
by analogy,
if they do not export, domestic output is
favoured because firms in other Member States then
have less chance of exporting their products to the
Italian market (7). The same is true when a Member
State grants aid to firms operating in the service and
distribution industries (8).

(36) Accordingly,

the measures under examination are,

in
principle, prohibited by Article 87(1) and can be
regarded as compatible with the common market only
if they qualify for one of the derogations laid down in
the Treaty.

conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No
69/2001 (9) or the de minimis rules in force when the aid
was granted are met.

Unlawfulness of the scheme

(38)

In view of the fact that the measures have already entered
into force, the Commission regrets that the Italian autho-
rities have not
fulfilled their obligation to notify the
scheme in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

Compatibility of the measures with the common
market

(39) Having

the measures

concluded that

in question
constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of
the Treaty, the Commission must consider whether the
aid is compatible with the common market within the
meaning of Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.

(40) As regards the applicability of the derogations provided
for in the Treaty, the Commission takes the view that the
aid does not qualify for the derogation in Article 87(2)(a)
as it is not aid having a social character or aid covered by
Article 87(2)(c). For obvious reasons, the derogations in
Article 87(3)(b) and (d) are not applicable either.

by

these provisions. The Member

(41) As regards the applicability of the derogations in Article
87(3)(a) and (c), the Commission refers to the doubts it
expressed in this connection in its decision initiating the
procedure and takes note of the statements made by the
Italian authorities under the procedure to the effect that
the aid in question is not aimed at any of the objectives
covered
State
concerned did not provide the necessary information to
enable the Commission to assess the compatibility of the
scheme in the light of
is
therefore not possible to assess the scheme from this
standpoint
finding is
in the present Decision. This
without prejudice to the possibility that aid granted
compatible
under
following an individual examination or may be covered
by the exemption regulations.

these derogations and it

scheme may

declared

the

be

(37)

The Commission considers, however, that aid granted
under the scheme does not constitute State aid if the

(42)

(7) Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 July 1988 in Case
the European Communities

102/87 French Republic v Commission of
(SEB) [1988] ECR 4067, paragraph 19.

(8) Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 7 March 2002 in Case
C-310/99 Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
[2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 85.

The Commission considered whether the measures could
qualify for the derogation in Article 87(2)(b) as aid to
make good the damage caused by natural disasters or
exceptional occurrences.
It should be noted that Italy,
in the course of the procedure, stressed that this was
the purpose of the aid.

(9) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30.

20.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 100/51

Aid to make good the damage caused by natural
disasters

(43) Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty provides that aid may be
granted to make good damage caused by natural disasters
or exceptional occurrences. The Commission has consis-
tently taken the view that volcanic eruptions, earth-
quakes,
constitute natural
and
disasters within the meaning of that Article.

landslides

flooding

municipalities identified by the Italian authorities, some
of which are very large, heavily populated and charac-
terised by a very significant level of economic activity
(e.g. Milan, Turin, Genoa). It is clear that many aid reci-
pients did not suffer direct damage, and there is no
definite proof of indirect damage. There is no evidence
either that any damage was caused solely by the natural
disasters referred to by the Italian authorities.

(44) Under the scheme in question, aid is granted to make
good the damage suffered by firms as a result of the
natural disasters that affected several areas in Italy. The
disasters and the areas concerned were specified and
defined in administrative instruments.

(48)

The aid mechanism and the amount granted to each
recipient bear no relation to the damage actually
suffered but depend on the volume of
investments
carried out in a given period, the volume of investments
in preceding years and the existence of a taxable income.
the recipient suffered
Under such conditions, even if
damage caused by the natural disasters at
the
issue,
amount of aid may exceed the amount of damage.

(45) As the Italian authorities also confirmed in their letter of
10 September 2004, the measure is based on a macro-
economic approach. However, according to the Treaty
itself and in line with the Commission’s
standard
practice, there must be a clear and direct link between
that caused the damage and the State aid
the event
intended to remedy it. The link must be established at
the level of each firm and not at the macroeconomic
level (10).

(46) As

indirect

regards more

forms of damage,

the
Commission communication to the European Parliament
and the Council concerning the European Community
response to the flooding in Austria, Germany and
several applicant countries states that ‘as regards compen-
sation for more indirect forms of damage caused by the floods,
e.g., production delays because of electricity cuts, difficulties in
delivering products due to blockage of certain transport routes,
where a clear causal link between the damage and the flood can
be established, full compensation is possible’ (11). However, in
the macroeconomic approach taken by the
view of
measure implemented by the Italian authorities,
is
not possible to identify a clear causal link between the
damage for which compensation is available and the
natural disasters. Even as regards indirect damage, the
link must be established at the level of each firm and
not at the macroeconomic level.

it

(49)

It must therefore be concluded that the formal investi-
gation procedure has not allayed the Commission’s
doubts and that the scheme in question constitutes aid
which is incompatible with the common market.

(50)

In their letter of 10 September 2004, the Italian autho-
rities stated, however, that they would ask the firms for
certificates or statements so that they could ascertain the
actual damage suffered by each firm and subsequently
carry out any checks necessary.

(51)

It cannot be ruled out that, in certain specific cases, the
aid granted under the scheme satisfies the conditions for
being regarded as compatible with the common market.
The Italian authorities may therefore check each recipient
firm in order to verify the existence of a clear and direct
link between the natural disasters in question and the
State aid intended to make good the damage. This
must make it possible to rule out with certainty any
overcompensation for damage suffered by individual
firms.

(47)

In the present case, the scheme benefits all firms carrying
out investments in excess of a certain threshold estab-
lished according to the average in preceding years in the

(10) See, for example, State aid cases N 629/02, N 545/02, N 429/01,
NN 62/2000, N 770/99 and NN 87/99. Even in the case referred to
by the Italian authorities, namely case N 92/2000, the Commission
identified a link at the level of the economic operators.

(11) Document COM(2002) 481 final of 28.8.2002, p. 9.

(52)

In order to rule out any overcompensation, the Italian
authorities must require insurance payments to recipients
to be deducted from the aid granted to them. They must
also ensure there is no cumulation of aid under the
scheme in question with aid under other measures in
order to avoid any overcompensation for damage.

L 100/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.4.2005

(53)

This Decision concerns the scheme as such and must be
enforced forthwith, in particular through recovery of aid
granted unlawfully and declared incompatible with the
common market. The Commission notes
a
negative decision on an aid scheme does not prejudge
the possibility that certain aid granted under the same
scheme need not be regarded as State aid or may be
considered compatible with the common market owing
to its particular characteristics (e.g. because the individual
grant is covered by the de minimis rules or because aid is
granted under a decision declaring the aid compatible or
under an exemption regulation).

that

VI. CONCLUSION

(54)

The Commission finds that Italy has unlawfully imple-
mented the aid in question in breach of Article 88(3) of
the Treaty.

scheme

in question is

(55) On the basis of its assessment, the Commission finds that
the
incompatible with the
common market since it does not satisfy the necessary
conditions for exemption as aid to make good the
damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occur-
rences under Article 87(2)(b),
the only derogation
claimed by Italy.

(56) Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 of
22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the appli-
cation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (12) provides that,
where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful
aid, the Commission is to decide that the Member State
concerned must take all necessary measures to recover
the aid from the beneficiary. The Commission is not to
require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a
general principle of Community law. Recovery in the
present case is not contrary to any principle. The
Commission also notes that neither the Italian authorities
nor the recipients have invoked such principles.

(57)

Italy must take all necessary measures to recover the aid
from the recipients, with the exception of
individual
cases which, in accordance with paragraphs 50, 51 and
52 of this Decision, satisfy the conditions for compat-
ibility with the common market under the derogation in
Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty. To that end, Italy must
require the aid recipients to repay the aid within two
months of notification of this Decision. The aid to be
recovered must include interest calculated in accordance
with Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of
21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the appli-
cation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (13).

Italy must send to the Commission an appropriate form
reporting progress in recovering the aid, must draw up a
list of the recipients concerned by the recovery and must
taken to effect
specify clearly the actual measures
In
and effective
immediate
addition, it must, within two months of the notification
of
send the documents proving that
recovery of the unlawful and incompatible aid from the
recipients is under way (e.g. circulars, recovery orders
issued, etc.),

this Decision,

recovery of

aid.

the

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The scheme for granting State aid to firms that carried out
investments in the municipalities affected by natural disasters
in 2002 and listed in Article 5(e) of Decree-Law No 282 of
24 December 2002, which was converted into Law No 27 of
21 February 2003 and prolongs for certain firms the benefits
provided for in Article 4(1) of Law No 383 of 18 October
2001, was unlawfully implemented by Italy in breach of
Article 88(3) of
the Treaty and is incompatible with the
common market, without prejudice to Article 3.

Article 2

Italy shall withdraw the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 in so
far as it is continuing to produce effects.

Article 3

Individual aid grants under the scheme referred to in Article 1
shall be compatible with the common market within the
meaning of Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty to the extent that
the damage actually
they do not exceed the net value of
suffered by each of the recipients as a result of the natural
disasters referred to in Article 5(e) of Decree-Law No 282 of
24 December 2002, with account being taken of insurance
payments or of amounts received under other measures.

Article 4

Individual aid grants under the scheme referred to in Article 1
that do not meet the conditions set out in Article 3 shall be
incompatible with the common market.

Article 5

Italy shall take all necessary measures to recover from the

1.
recipients the aid referred to in Article 4.

(12) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. Regulation as amended by 2003 Act of

Accession.

(13) OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

Italy shall suspend all aid payments from the date of

2.
notification of this Decision.

20.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 100/53

Recovery

shall be

and in
3.
accordance with the procedures of national law provided that
they allow the immediate and effective enforcement of this
Decision.

effected without delay

comply herewith by completing the questionnaire attached to
this Decision. In particular, it shall, by the same deadline, send
to the Commission all the documents demonstrating that it has
initiated the procedures for recovering the unlawful aid from
the recipients.

The aid to be recovered shall

4.
include interest from the
date on which it was at the disposal of the recipients until
the date of its recovery.

Article 7

Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the provisions

5.
of Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

6.
Italy shall order all the recipients of the aid referred to in
Article 4 to repay, within two months of the date of notifi-
cation of this Decision, the aid unlawfully granted plus interest.

Done at Brussels, 20 October 2004.

Article 6

Within two months of the date of notification of this Decision,
inform the Commission of the measures taken to
Italy shall

For the Commission

Mario MONTI
Member of the Commission