2005/919/EC: Commission Decision of  14 December 2004  Direct tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad  (notified under document number C(2004) 4746)   (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2005-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, State aid, infringement of EU law, tax incentive, trade event, type of business

21.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/39

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 14 December 2004

Direct tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad

(notified under document number C(2004) 4746)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/919/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

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),

Whereas:

I. PROCEDURE

(1)

Italy enacted Decree-Law No 269 of 30 September 2003
laying down urgent measures to promote development
and correct the trend in public finances (DL 269/2003),
published in Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 229
of 2 October 2003. Article 1(1)(b) of DL 269/2003
provides for specific tax incentives for participation in
subsequently converted,
trade fairs abroad and was
into Law No 326 of 24
without
November 2003 (L 326/2003), published in Official
Gazette of the Italian Republic No 274 of 25 November
2003.

amendments,

(3)

(4)

the
By letter dated 22 October 2003 (D/56756),
Commission invited the Italian authorities to provide
information about the incentives in question and their
entry into force, with a view to establishing whether they
constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the
EC Treaty. By the same letter, the Commission reminded
Italy of
the EC
its obligation under Article 88(3) of
Treaty to notify the Commission of any measures consti-
tuting aid before their implementation.

the

By letters of 11 November 2003 (A/37737) and 26
November 2003 (A/38138),
Italian authorities
provided the information requested. By letter dated 19
December 2003 (D/58192),
the Commission again
reminded Italy of its obligations under Article 88(3) of
the EC Treaty and invited the Italian authorities to inform
the possible beneficiaries of the tax incentives in question
the consequences envisaged by the Treaty and by
of
Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of
22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the appli-
cation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) in the event that
the incentives in question were found to constitute aid
the
prior
implemented without
Commission.

authorisation

by

By letter of 18 March 2004 (SG 2004 D/201066), the
Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate
the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty
in respect of Italy’s tax incentives in favour of under-
takings taking part in trade fairs abroad. By letter of 1
June 2004 (A/35042), the Italian authorities submitted
their observations.

(1) OJ C 221, 3.9.2004, p. 2.

of Accession.

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

L 335/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2005

(5)

The Commission decision to initiate the formal investi-
gation procedure was published in the Official Journal of
the European Communities, with an invitation to interested
parties to submit their observations (3). No comments
were received.

incurred in connection with participation in trade fairs
are included in the amount eligible for aid under the
scheme.

(6)

(7)

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

Article 1(1)(b) of DL 269/2003 provides that any under-
takings liable to corporate income tax in Italy and in
business on the date the scheme entered into force
may reduce their taxable income by the amount of the
expenses directly incurred with respect to their partici-
pation in trade fairs abroad. The provision applies exclu-
sively to the expenses incurred by beneficiaries during the
first
tax year following the one when DL 269/2003
entered into force (2 October 2003); thus, for under-
takings whose business cycle follows the calendar year,
the measure affects the determination of
their 2004
income. Article 1(1)(b) of DL 269/2003
taxable
provides that
the reduction in taxable income is in
addition to the ordinary deduction from the beneficiary’s
declared income of the costs associated with participation
in trade fairs abroad.

(9)

The Italian authorities have indicated that
the benefit
applies irrespective of the classification of the expenses,
which are usually subject to differentiated tax treatment,
as seen above. Italy explained that all the expenses asso-
ciated with participation in trade fairs are treated alike in
order to overcome the difficulty in classifying expen-
diture items in the various categories. However, Article
1(1)(b) of DL 269/2003 expressly excludes from the
eligible amount sponsoring costs, which form part of
advertising costs and are ordinarily deductible in full
under Article 108(2) TUIR.

III. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE

(10)

In its letter of 18 March 2004 initiating the formal
investigation procedure,
the Commission considered
that the measure fulfilled the criteria for being classed
as state aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

As regards the general rules for deducting business costs
associated with participation in trade fairs abroad, Article
108(2) of the Italian Income Tax Code (TUIR) makes a
distinction between advertising and promotion costs,
including trade fair costs, on the one hand, and agency
costs, on the other. While advertising and promotion
costs are deductible in full
in the tax year in which
instalments in that and
they are incurred or in equal
the following four years, agency costs may only be
deducted up to one third of
in equal
instalments over a period of five years.

their amount,

(11)

In particular, the Commission took the view that the
scheme conferred a selective advantage on the benefi-
ciaries because it appeared to benefit only companies
engaged in exhibiting products
export, while
excluding other business activities. For example, Italian
companies trading their goods exclusively on the Italian
market, those providing services, companies trading in
goods that are not suitable for being exhibited at trade
fairs, and those taking part in trade fairs in Italy are
excluded from the scheme.

for

(8) With respect

to the possible different categories of
expenses associated with participation in trade fairs, the
wording of Article 1(1)(b) of DL 269/2003 indicates that
the incentives provided under the scheme are limited to
the costs of exhibiting products and that no other costs

(3) See footnote 1.

(12)

The Commission was also of the opinion that the scheme
favoured Italian undertakings participating in trade fairs
abroad, thereby strengthening their position with respect
to their
including both foreign
traders competing with the undertakings in question in
the Italian and foreign markets and foreign competitors
established in Italy competing with the beneficiaries on
the Italian market.

foreign competitors,

21.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/41

(13)

the selective
The Commission finally considered that
character of the tax advantages at issue could not be
justified by the nature or general scheme of the Italian
tax system, nor did it appear to compensate for possible
expenses incurred abroad on account of participation in
such trade fairs, as the aid is not contingent upon any
specific foreign tax or financial burden being imposed.
Neither did any of the exceptions provided for in Article
87(2) and (3) of
the EC Treaty seem to apply. The
advantages were linked to expenses not eligible for aid
under any of
the block exemption regulations or
Community guidelines; under the Block Exemption Regu-
lation for SMEs in particular, aid for participation in trade
fairs is admissible only if it does not exceed 50 % of the
eligible costs and for the first participation by an SME in
a particular fair or exhibition, while the tax incentive in
question concerns all companies and all costs associated
with taking part in any trade fairs abroad.

IV. COMMENTS FROM ITALY

(14)

In response to the appraisal made by the Commission in
its letter of 18 March 2004 initiating the formal investi-
gation, the Italian authorities raised three main obser-
vations aimed at demonstrating that
the scheme at
issue does not discriminate between potential benefi-
ciaries
the distributive
trades, but constitutes a general measure open to all
undertakings engaged in trading activities.

in the different branches of

permanent establishment abroad insofar as the expen-
diture incurred in taking part in trade fairs is charged
to the head office in Italy.

(16)

Second, the Italian authorities argue that the measure
does not put non-exporting undertakings at a disad-
vantage, but that, on the contrary, it offers an incentive
for them to find it worthwhile to participate in fairs of
this kind. Where an undertaking operated in a sector
producing goods or services that cannot be traded or
exported,
it would not be in competition with other
undertakings operating in sectors producing the same
goods or services.

(17)

Third, the Italian authorities stress that the measure is in
force for one year only, and that therefore the advantage
given to undertakings participating in trade fairs abroad
the
does not significantly distort
common market.

the functioning of

V. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

1. State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of
the EC Treaty

the Commission maintains

(18) Having considered the observations submitted by the
Italian authorities,
the
position it expressed in the letter of 18 March 2004
initiating the formal
investigation procedure, namely
that the scheme under examination constitutes state aid
because it cumulatively fulfils all the relevant criteria laid
down in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

(15)

that

applies

sectors of

undertakings

First, according to the Italian authorities, the measure is
applicable without distinction to all
the
economy and is open to all undertakings liable to
Italian business taxation, provided they incur costs with
respect to participation in trade fairs abroad. The Italian
the tax incentive in
authorities also point out
question
a
to
also
permanent establishment abroad. They add that the tax
incentive is strictly linked to the costs incurred in taking
part in trade fairs abroad, and does not provide any
disproportionate tax benefits. The Italian authorities
consider that the scheme does not promote participation
in trade fairs abroad as a separate business activity, but as
an investment open to all undertakings, which the Italian
Government intends to encourage as a general economic
policy objective. The Italian authorities finally clarify that
a
the

to undertakings

advantage

applies

having

having

(19)

for

liable

in Italy are

First, to be considered aid a measure must afford the
beneficiaries an advantage that reduces the costs they
would normally bear in the course of their business.
corporate
All undertakings
income tax charged on their net profits resulting from
the difference between their gross revenues and their
business expenses as indicated in their accounts. The
scheme affords the beneficiaries an economic advantage
consisting in the reduction of their taxable profits by an
amount corresponding to the costs incurred through
taking part
in addition to the
ordinary deduction from gross revenues permitted for
tax purposes. A beneficiary undertaking incurring such

in trade fairs abroad,

L 335/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2005

costs posts in its accounts a corresponding negative
adjustment having the effect of lowering the corporate
income tax burden for the tax year in question. This
advantage finally results in lower payments of tax due
for the year, constituting a financial benefit for the bene-
ficiary.

the measure is open to all undertakings taxable in Italy
and carrying out certain investments which are favoured
by the Italian Government, according to the economic
policy objectives pursued by the scheme in question.

(20)

In its submissions,
Italy observed that the scheme in
question does not confer any significant competitive
advantages on its beneficiaries in that
its effects are
limited to the costs actually incurred, and the same
mechanisms are applied as for the other deductions
allowed by the Italian Income Tax Code (TUIR).

(24) After attentive scrutiny,

the exceptional

the Commission confirms its
opinion that
tax deduction scheme
enacted by Italy constitutes a specific scheme favouring
only the undertakings incurring certain eligible expenses
concerned with participation in trade fairs abroad and
excluding other undertakings not participating in these
fairs. Even if it is in principle open to all undertakings
participating in trade fairs abroad on a voluntary basis,
the scheme effectively favours only the undertakings
engaged in exporting and is not open to other business
sectors. According to the case law of the Court of Justice,
advantages granted to undertakings that carry on export
activities and incur certain expenses related to those
activities are selective in nature (4).

(21)

The Commission considers, however, that, as the Italian
the deduction at
authorities have recognised,
issue is
extraordinary with respect
to the normal deduction
tax purposes and should therefore be
allowed for
viewed as an advantage reducing costs normally borne
by undertakings liable to corporate income tax in Italy.
The Commission therefore confirms its appraisal that the
scheme in question provides its beneficiaries with an
economic and financial advantage taking the form of a
reduction of taxable profits in Italy.

(25)

accept

The Commission cannot
the argument put
forward by the Italian authorities that undertakings not
involved in trading and exporting cannot be compared
with those involved in trading and therefore that the
scheme is general. The Commission considers
that,
since the advantage conferred by excluding certain
specific expenses from the tax base is limited only to
undertakings carrying on export activities and comes
on top of
it cannot be
the ordinary tax deduction,
considered a general measure. The Commission further
notes that the Italian authorities have not demonstrated
that the measure is justified by the nature or general
scheme of the tax system. In any event, the advantages
conferred on the beneficiaries are not consistent with the
internal
logic of the Italian tax system and are of an
exceptional and temporary nature.

(22)

Second, the advantage must be granted by the State or
through state resources. As the Italian authorities did not
submit any objections,
the Commission confirms the
appraisal made when initiating the formal investigation
procedure, according to which the advantage is attri-
butable to the State as it consists in the forgoing of
tax revenues normally collected by the Italian Treasury.

(26)

that

The Commission therefore confirms its view that the
scheme is specific because, for example, it favours only
undertakings
and
accordingly ‘exhibit products’ at trade fairs abroad, as
opposed to service undertakings, undertakings trading
in goods not suitable for being exhibited at trade fairs,
and undertakings taking part in trade fairs in Italy.

in exporting

engaged

are

(23)

Third, the measure must be specific or selective in that it
favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain
goods’. The Italian authorities essentially maintain that

(4) Judgment of the Court of 10 December 1969 joined Cases 6 and
11/69 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
[1969] ECR 523; Judgment of the Court of 7 June 1988 Case 57/86
Hellenic Republic v Commission of
the European Communities
[1988] ECR 2855;
Judgment of 15 July 2004 Case C-501/00
Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
[2004] ECR I-6717.

21.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/43

(27)

The Commission also confirms its initial doubts as to
whether all the companies subject to tax in Italy are
entitled to the same level of benefits with respect to
trade fairs in which they take part abroad. The Italian
authorities have confirmed that the expenses eligible for
the incentive at issue also include those incurred by a
foreign permanent establishment of an Italian company
which assumes a degree of independence from its head
office, as provided by Article 162 TUIR or under the
in force with the country
relevant
where the permanent establishment is situated.

tax conventions

concerned with improving the trading conditions of the
beneficiaries in exporting their goods to foreign markets
and therefore directly affect companies active in interna-
tional trade, including intra-Community trade. Moreover,
even aid for extra-Community export activities may affect
intra-Community trade and distort competition within
the Community (6).

(31)

(32)

(28) However, Italy maintains that the advantage in question
is applicable only if, in accordance with Article 1(1)(b) of
DL 269/2003,
the expenses in question are directly
incurred by an Italian beneficiary. This obliges foreign
to
establishments or branches of
charge the expenses in question directly to an Italian
office in order to benefit
from the tax reduction in
question, effectively excluding foreign establishments of
Italian-based undertakings from the advantage at issue.
The Commission concludes that for this reason too the
scheme does not seem open to all undertakings on an
equal basis.

Italian companies

(29)

Finally, the measure must affect competition and trade
between Member States. Italy essentially maintains that
the measure does not affect competition at all or, alter-
natively, that its effects on competition are insignificant
given the short duration of the scheme in question.

rule out

the possibility that

The Commission cannot accept the argument concerning
the scheme’s limited effects on competition, because the
fact that the measure remains in force for only one year
does not
the amounts
involved may be large enough to have significant
is particularly true
effects on certain markets. This
where
that
are
the beneficiaries
normally take part in many trade fairs. Moreover, given
that the aid is not limited in absolute terms, its amount
could be substantial. In any event, the limited amount of
the aid would not be enough to rule out the possibility
of competition and trade between Member States being
distorted.

companies

large

In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that the short
period of validity of the measure will not allow under-
takings that do not normally take part in trade fairs to
benefit from the advantage provided, in particular if these
companies have to take decisions such as whether or not
to enter a new market. The measure therefore seems
more aimed at benefiting firms that already commonly
use trade fairs, including companies whose main business
objective is specifically to organise and manage the exhi-
bition of products at trade fairs, which would dispropor-
tionately benefit from the incentive at issue because they
are not expressly excluded from the scope of Article
1(1)(b) of DL 269/2003.

(30)

In line with settled case law of
for a measure to distort competition it

Considering the effects of the measure, the Commission
confirms the appraisal made when initiating the formal
the
investigation.
Court (5),
is
sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with
other undertakings on markets open to competition. In
particular, the Commission confirms that the measure
distorts competition and trade between Member States
specifically
because

its objectives

and effects

are

2. Legality of the scheme

(33)

The Italian authorities have put the scheme into effect
without prior notification to the Commission and have
therefore failed to fulfil their obligation under Article
88(3) of the EC Treaty. Insofar as the measure constitutes
state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC
into effect without prior
Treaty and has been put
it is to be classed as
approval from the Commission,
illegal aid.

(5) See, for instance, Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April
(Flemish Region) v

1998 Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest
Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR II-717.

(6) Judgment of the Court of 21 March 1990 Case C-142/87 Kingdom
of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities [1990]
ECR I-959.

L 335/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2005

3. Compatibility

(34)

Insofar as the measure constitutes state aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty,
its compa-
tibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions
provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty.

promote the economic development of areas where the
standard of living is abnormally low or where there is
serious underemployment.

(35)

(36)

The Italian authorities have not explicitly challenged the
Commission’s assessment, set out
in its letter of 18
that
March 2004 initiating the formal
none of the exceptions provided for in Article 87(2)
and (3) of the EC Treaty, whereby state aid may be
considered compatible with the
common market,
applies in the present case. The Commission therefore
confirms its assessment as set out in points 25 to 32
of its letter of 18 March 2004.

investigation,

(39)

In the same way, the scheme cannot be considered to be
a project of common European interest or to remedy a
serious disturbance in Italy’s economy, as provided for by
Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty; nor does it have as its
the promotion of culture and heritage conser-
object
vation as provided for by Article 87(3)(d) of the EC
Treaty.

(40)

The advantages in question are linked to expenses that
are not eligible for aid under any of the block exemption
regulations or Community guidelines. With special
reference to participation in trade fairs, Article 5(b) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January
2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty to de minimis aid (*) (7) provides that aid for parti-
cipation in trade fairs is only admissible if it does not
exceed 50 % of the eligible costs and for the first parti-
cipation by an SME in a particular fair or exhibition,
while
all
companies and all costs associated with taking part in
any trade fairs abroad.

in question concerns

tax incentive

the

Finally, the scheme in question must be examined in the
light of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. This Article
provides for the authorisation of aid to facilitate the
development of certain economic activities or of certain
economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect
trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the
common interest. The tax advantages granted by the
scheme are not
job
creation or specific projects. They simply constitute a
reduction in the costs that would normally have to be
borne by the firms concerned in the course of their
therefore be regarded as
export business and must
export
the
aid.
Commission’s standard practice, such aid is considered
to be incompatible with the common market.

linked to specific investments,

line with

operating

linked

In

(37)

The exceptions provided for in Article 87(2) of the EC
Treaty, which concern aid of a social character granted to
individual consumers, aid to make good the damage
caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences
and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic
of Germany, do not apply in this case.

(41)

The Commission observes furthermore that, even if the
measure were found to facilitate the development of
certain economic activities, such as the internationali-
sation of Italian businesses, and thus result in increased
volumes of trade, the Commission cannot rule out the
possibility that the extent of the relative effects on intra-
Community trade would be contrary to the common
interest.

(38) Neither does

the exception
the scheme qualify for
allowed by Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty for aid to

(*) The text contains a material error. This sentence should read: ‘With
special reference to participation in trade fairs, Article 5(b) of
Commission Regulation (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 […]’. The Regulation is to be
found in OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33 and not p. 1 as incorrectly
stated at the end of footnote 7.

(7) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 1.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

(42)

that

the tax incentives
The Commission concludes
granted under
this measure constitute operating aid
that does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the
prohibition and is
therefore incompatible with the
common market. The Commission also finds that Italy
has illegally implemented the measure in question.

21.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/45

(43) Where illegally granted state aid is found to be incom-
the natural conse-
patible with the common market,
quence of such a finding is that
the aid should be
recovered from the beneficiaries. Through recovery of
the aid, the competitive position that existed before the
aid was granted is restored as far as possible.

prejudice to the possibility that all or part of the aid
granted in individual cases may be deemed compatible,
in particular under Article 5(b) of the Block Exemption
Regulation for SMEs,

the

investigation,

for example, of

scheme’s potential beneficiaries of

(44) Although the present procedure was closed before the
end of the tax year in which the scheme is in force
and therefore before the tax liability of most beneficiaries
has become definitive, the Commission cannot rule out
firms may already have benefited
the possibility that
from the aid in terms,
lower part
payments of taxes relating to the current tax year. The
Commission notes that, following the opening of the
Italian authorities publicly
formal
warned the
the
possible consequences should the Commission find that
the measure in question constituted incompatible aid.
The Commission nevertheless considers
it necessary
that, in order to recover any aid already made available
to the beneficiaries,
Italy should enjoin the potential
beneficiaries of the scheme, within two months of the
to reimburse the aid with
adoption of
interest
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 application of Article 93 of the
EC Treaty (8).
In particular, where the aid has been
already made available through reductions in payments
of taxes due for the current tax year, Italy must collect
the entire tax due by means of
the final scheduled
payment for 2004. In any event, full recovery must be
completed at the latest by the end of the first tax year
following the date of notification of the present Decision.

this Decision,

(45)

and

planned

Italy must provide the Commission, using the ques-
tionnaire in the Annex to this Decision, with a list of
the beneficiaries concerned and indicate clearly the
measures
secure
immediate and effective recovery of the illegal state aid.
Within two months of the adoption of this Decision, all
documents giving evidence that recovery proceedings
have been initiated against
the
illegal aid (such as circulars, recovery orders, etc.) must
also be transmitted to the Commission.

the beneficiaries of

already

taken

to

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The state aid scheme in the form of tax incentives in favour of
companies taking part in trade fairs abroad, provided for by
Article 1(1)(b) of Decree-Law No 269 of 30 September 2003,
which Italy has unlawfully put into effect in breach of Article
88(3) of
is incompatible with the common
market.

the EC Treaty,

Italy shall abolish the aid scheme referred to in the first
paragraph.

Article 2

Italy shall take the necessary measures to recover from the
1.
beneficiaries the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully
made available to them.

Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with
the procedures of national law.

2. Where the aid has already been made available by means
of lower part payments of taxes due for the current tax year,
Italy shall collect the entire tax due by means of the final
scheduled payment for 2004.

In all other cases, Italy shall recover the tax due at the latest by
the end of the first tax year following the date of notification of
this Decision.

(46)

This Decision concerns the scheme as such and must be
including recovery of aid
implemented immediately,
is without
it
granted under

the scheme. However,

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

3.
The aid to be recovered shall bear interest, running from
the date on which it was first put at the disposal of the bene-
ficiaries until
its actual recovery and calculated in accordance
with the Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No
794/2004.

L 335/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2005

Article 3

Within two months of the date of notification of this Decision,
Italy shall inform the Commission, using the questionnaire in
the Annex to the Decision, of the measures taken to comply
with it.

(b) transmit all documents giving evidence that the recovery
proceedings have been initiated against the beneficiaries of
the illegal aid.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Italy.

Within the same period of time as that referred to in the first
paragraph, Italy shall:

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2004.

(a) enjoin all beneficiaries of the aid referred to in Article 1 to

reimburse the illegal aid, with interest;

For the Commission

Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission

21.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/47

ANNEX

Information regarding the implementation of the Commission Decision on aid scheme C 12/04 — Italy — Tax
incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad

1. Total number of beneficiaries and total amount of aid to be recovered

1.1. Please explain in detail how the amount of aid to be recovered from individual beneficiaries will be calculated

— The principal

— The interest.

1.2. What is the total amount of unlawful aid granted under this scheme that is to be recovered (gross aid equivalent;

at … prices)?

1.3. What is the total number of beneficiaries from whom unlawful aid granted under this scheme is to be recovered?

2. Measures already taken and planned to recover the aid

2.1. Please describe in detail what measures have already been taken and what measures are planned to ensure
the legal basis for the

the aid. Please also indicate where relevant

immediate and effective recovery of
measures taken/planned.

2.2. By what date will the recovery of the aid be completed?

3. Information by individual beneficiary

Please provide details for each beneficiary from whom unlawful aid granted under the scheme is to be recovered in the
table overleaf.

Identity of the beneficiary

Amount of unlawful aid granted (*)
Currency: ….

Amounts reimbursed (°)
Currency: ….

(*) Amount of aid put at the disposal of the beneficiary (in gross aid equivalent; at … prices).
(°) Gross amounts reimbursed (including interest).