2006/261/EC: Commission Decision of  16 March 2005  on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies  (notified under document number C(2005) 591)   (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2006-03-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax incentive

L 94/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.4.2006

COMMISSION DECISION

of 16 March 2005

on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed
companies

(notified under document number C(2005) 591)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/261/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Italy of its obligation under Article 88(3) of the Treaty to
notify the Commission of any measures constituting aid
before their implementation.

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

(3)

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),

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 Treaty and invited the Italian authorities to inform
the possible beneficiaries of the tax incentives in question
of
the consequences envisaged by the Treaty and by
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
unlawful aid implemented without prior authorisation
by the Commission.

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’),
which entered into force on the date of publication in
Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 229 of 2
October 2003. Articles 1(1)(d) and 11 of DL 269/2003
companies
provide
admitted to listing on a regulated market
in the
European Union between 2 October 2003 and 31
December 2004. The above provisions were subsequently
converted, without amendments, into Law No 326 of 24
November 2003 (‘L 326/2003’), published in Official
Gazette of
Italian Republic No 274 of 25
the
November 2003.

tax incentives

specific

for

for

(2)

By letter dated 22 October 2003 (D/56756),
the
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
Treaty. By the same letter, the Commission reminded

(1) OJ C 221, 3.9.2004, p. 7.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

By letter of 18 February 2004 (SG 2004 D/200644), the
Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate
the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in
respect of
listed
companies.

for newly

incentives

Italy’s

tax

By letter of 22 April 2004 (A/32918), the Italian autho-
rities submitted their comments.

The Commission decision to initiate the formal investi-
gation procedure was published on 3 September 2004 in
the Official Journal of the European Communities, with an
invitation to interested parties to submit
their obser-
vations (3).

On 16 and 27 September 2004 two ad hoc meetings
took place between representatives of the Commission
certain
and the
aspects of the scheme.

Italian tax authorities

to examine

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

Accession.
(3) See footnote 1.

1.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/43

(8)

By fax of 4 October 2004 (A/37459), Borsa Italiana SpA
(the Italian stock exchange) submitted observations. By
letter of 28 October 2004 (D/57697), the Commission
forwarded them to the Italian authorities, which reacted
by letter of 2 December 2004 (A/39473).

an IPO transaction notably include due diligence costs,
fees of external consultants and the regulatory costs of
the transaction which,
in the case of the Italian stock
exchange, total between 3,5% and 7% of the amount
traded during the listing operation. In order to benefit
from this reduction in taxable income, a company must
obtain certification by an external auditor of the actual
expenditures incurred.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

(9)

The measure provides for two sets of tax incentives with
to the stock exchange listing of companies
respect
subject to Italian corporation tax.

(13)

(10)

in a Member State of

Pursuant to Article 11 of DL 269/2003, any companies
whose shares are admitted to listing on a regulated
the European Union
market
between 2 October 2003 and 31 December 2004 may
over a three-year period benefit from a reduced corporate
income tax rate of 20% (rate normally applied: 35% in
2003 and 33% in 2004). This ‘listing premium’ applies
only if the newly listed companies increase their net
worth by at least 15 percent as a result of the Initial
Public Offering (IPO) of their stock and provided that
they have not already been listed on a European stock
exchange. The maximum amount of income which may
be subject to the reduced rate is limited to €30 million
per year, corresponding to maximum aid of €4,5 million
(35 – 20 = 15% of 30 million) in 2003, and €3,9 million
(33 – 20 = 13% of 30 million) in 2004.

to the period(s)

(11) Where a company is admitted to listing during the above
period but subsequently de-listed, the incentive is applied
only with respect
in which the
company’s shares were effectively traded on the stock
exchange. The benefit is also maintained on the same
terms if a company is subsequently re-listed on another
European stock exchange which guarantees an equivalent
level of investor protection as that afforded by the Italian
stock exchange.

(12) Article 1(1)(d) of DL 269/2003 provides that newly listed
companies fulfilling the conditions laid down in Article
11 of DL 269/2003 may reduce their taxable income by
an amount equal to the IPO expenses they incur in 2004.
This reduction in taxable income is in addition to the
ordinary deduction of
the costs involved in the IPO,
which are recognised for tax purposes as any other
business expense. The expenses incurred with respect to

(14)

(15)

The reduction in taxable income provided for by Article
1(1)(d) of DL 269/2003 has the effect of reducing the
effective tax burden for the year 2004 since the amount
of the tax liability is reduced by 33% (the corporate
income tax rate for 2004, not considering the 20%
reduced nominal rate which would apply because of
the above listing premium) of the amount of eligible
expenses concerned with the listing. Under the system
of advance payment of corporation tax in Italy, a bene-
ficiary company would pay in two instalments
the
income tax due in respect of the 2004 tax year, based
on an estimate of the tax that the company expects to
pay for 2004, therefore including the reduction resulting
from the scheme. To prevent the benefits being carried
over to the advance payments for 2005 (which would
take place if the latter were computed on the basis of the
– reduced – tax paid in 2004), Article 1(1)(d) of DL
269/2003 provides that the advance tax payments for
2005 are to be computed on the basis of the tax that
would have been payable in 2004 in the absence of the
tax benefit in question.

in 2004,

The two incentives provided for respectively by Article
1(1)(d) and Article 11 of DL 269/2003 therefore have
timeframes. While the income reduction is
different
applicable only
listing premium is
the
applicable as from the date of listing and over a three-
year period. The Italian authorities have confirmed that
the incentives do not have any effect on the advance tax
due in 2003, but are only available in 2004 and, solely
in the case of the listing premium under Article 11 of DL
269/2003, during the three years after listing.

In tabling the Decree-Law providing for the tax incentive
in question, the Italian Government estimated that the
measure could concern 10 possible beneficiaries
in
2003 and 25 in 2004, corresponding to tax expenditures
of €7,2 million in 2003 and €27,7 million in 2004. No
estimate of
the
following two years of operation of the scheme.

expenditure was provided for

the

L 94/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.4.2006

(16)

(17)

(18)

III. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE

a

affords

the Treaty.

the measure

In particular,

In its letter initiating the formal investigation procedure,
the Commission considered that the measure fulfilled all
the criteria for being classed as state aid under Article
the Commission
87(1) of
considered that
two sets of
it grants companies newly
economic advantages. First,
listed on a
reduced
regulated stock exchange
corporate income tax rate of 20%, thereby increasing
the after-tax income they earn from any business
activity over
to the
reduction in the nominal rate, beneficiary undertakings
enjoy a reduced tax liability in the year in which they
obtain a listing and in the following two years. Second,
the scheme lowers the taxable income in the tax year in
which the listing transaction takes place by allowing the
beneficiary undertakings to reduce their taxable income
by an amount corresponding to the IPO expenses. This
negative adjustment also has the effect of lowering the
effective tax rate applied to 2004 income.

three-year period. Owing

a

the above advantages
The Commission observed that
seemed to favour certain undertakings. In particular,
it
pointed out that the tax incentives at issue were likely to
favour companies with their registered office in Italy.
Foreign companies operating in Italy by means of a
permanent establishment or any other establishment in
the form of an agency, branch or subsidiary within the
meaning of Article 43 of the Treaty would benefit from
the effective tax rate reduction only with respect to the
their business activities attributable to such
share of
–
this
and
Italian
although justifiable for tax measures following the terri-
torial logic of the tax system – is not justified for an aid
measure because
foreign companies
clearly puts
carrying on business in Italy at a competitive disad-
vantage with respect to Italian companies.

establishments,

differentiation

it

the

scheme

The Commission also observed that, although the
formally open to all
are
benefits of
companies admitted to listing on a European regulated
market, and the scheme therefore does not ostensibly
discriminate between companies that obtain a listing in
Italy and those listed in another Member State,
the
measure effectively favours only companies listed for
the first time within the narrow timeframe stipulated.
In this respect, the Commission pointed out that the
rules on company listing lay down a number of
including the ability to demon-
stringent requirements,
the company’s assets and
strate the soundness of
financial position, duly certified by company accounts
and external auditors. Candidates for listing must take
the form of limited companies, so that their shares are
freely transferable, and must fulfil certain minimum capi-

talisation requirements. The Commission accordingly
observed that the time limits laid down by the scheme
would de
candidate
companies from the benefits in question.

exclude many potential

facto

(19)

(20)

the formal

the Commission pointed out

investigation
In its decision to initiate
the
that
procedure,
measure involved the use of
it
consists in the forgoing of tax revenues and that it was
liable to distort competition and trade within the
common market because the beneficiaries, being listed
companies, operate on markets where competition is
intense and where intra-Community trade takes place.

state resources as

The Commission finally considered that
the selective
character of the tax advantages at issue did not appear
to be justified by the nature or general scheme of the
Italian tax system, nor did the measure appear
to
compensate for possible expenses incurred as the aid
amount
is not contingent upon specific costs being
borne as a result of admission to listing. Neither did
any of the exceptions provided for in Article 87(2) and
(3) of the Treaty seem to apply.

IV. COMMENTS FROM ITALY AND INTERESTED
PARTIES

(21)

Both the Italian authorities and Borsa Italiana SpA, the
only interested party that submitted comments, essen-
tially raised three objections.

(22)

Firstly, according to the Italian authorities and Borsa
Italiana SpA, the scheme should be viewed as a general
tax policy measure
Italian
aimed at
thereby countering the
companies to seek a listing,
and
negative
strengthening their capitalisation and competitiveness
on global markets. As such,
the scheme
they argue,
falls outside the scope of state aid review.

encouraging

observed

recent

years,

trend

in

(23)

Secondly, they claim, the scheme does not affect compe-
tition because any undertaking can benefit
from the
incentive by obtaining a listing on a European stock
exchange; the scheme is applicable across the board to
all business sectors and all industries and is therefore not
selective.

1.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/45

(24)

they argue that

the scheme does not affect
Finally,
competition because of its limited duration and budget
and because foreign companies are also eligible to receive
the incentives in question.

a measure might potentially be deemed to be justified by
the specific objective pursued by the scheme on the basis
of the case law of the Court (4), the Commission notes
that the short duration of the measure makes it incon-
encouraging
sistent with the
companies to seek a listing, as it effectively excludes
many possible beneficiaries.

specific objective of

V. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

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

the Commission maintains

(25) Having considered the observations submitted by the
the
Italian authorities,
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 fulfils the relevant criteria laid down in Article
87(1) of the Treaty.

(29) As for the objection that the scheme does not confer any
specific advantage and cannot therefore have the effect of
distorting competition and trade within the Community
because it favours only undertakings subject to different
tax legislations, the Commission refers to the relevant
case law of the Court (5) confirming that a derogatory
tax measure not justified by the nature of the tax system
or by the specific nature of the scheme may constitute
aid.

Selective advantages

The Commission considers that the measure in question
clearly confers selective advantages, since it derogates
from the normal operation of the tax system, and that
favours certain undertakings or the production of
it
certain goods,
in that it constitutes a specific scheme
favouring only the undertakings that are able to obtain
a listing during the period stipulated by the scheme,
thereby excluding undertakings that are already listed,
undertakings that do not fulfil the conditions for being
listed and undertakings that decide not seek a listing in
that period.

(30)

(26)

(27)

Italy’s argument that the scheme constitutes a tax policy
measure falling outside the scope of the state aid rules
cannot be accepted, nor can this exception to the normal
tax rules be justified by the nature of the Italian tax
system, since it does not address any fundamental tax
distinctions between the situations of listed as opposed
to non listed companies. In particular, since the scheme
provides for a reduction in the tax rate applicable to
it cannot be
future profits earned by its beneficiaries,
are
profits
such
deemed
unrelated to the fact that the beneficiaries are admitted
to listing, to their capital structures and to the other
characteristics
the
scheme cannot be justified by its own specific objectives,
because its short duration makes it effectively inaccessible
to many potential beneficiaries.

associated with

proportionate

because

Finally,

listing.

although

certain size

tax measure,

The Commission notes that in another judgment (6) the
endorsed the Commission’s appraisal
that a
Court
national
general,
formally
constituted aid because it was more advantageous to
certain national industrial sectors. In the case in point,
the Commission considers that a tax incentive granted as
an exception to the normal tax treatment to all under-
takings taxable in Italy which are admitted to listing on a
regulated market has significant effects on companies of
competition by
and could distort
a
improving the competitive position of such companies
vis-à-vis their competitors not
In
addition, as the aid is granted through the tax system,
it mainly favours Italian undertakings because, while the
tax reduction applies to the worldwide profits generated
by Italian undertakings,
it only applies to the Italian
profits of foreign undertakings and, in this respect, the
latter are put at a disadvantage. While this difference in
treatment could normally be justified by the nature of the
tax system, in the case in point the fact that the scheme
is an extraordinary incentive that cannot be justified as
part of the ordinary operation of the tax system rules out
such a justification.

registered in Italy.

(31) With respect

to the limited period of validity of the
scheme, Italy argues that the limitation on the number
of potential beneficiaries (only companies admitted to
imposed by
listing before 31 December 2004)
budget constraints. In its view, this further strengthens

is

(28)

In the same vein, the reduction of taxable income is also
an extraordinary incentive because it comes on top of the
ordinary deduction of business expenses. Although such

(4) Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline [2001] ECR I-8365.
(5) Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709.
(6) Case 203/82 Italy v Commission [1983] ECR 2525.

L 94/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.4.2006

from its classification as aid or

the conclusion that the measure’s effect on competition
is quite limited. The Commission considers that
the
limited budget earmarked for the incentive does not
from the
detract
scheme
competition. The
resulting
produces an alteration (through taxation) of
the pre-
existing competitive position of certain undertakings
engaged in business activities open to international
competition, and as such it constitutes aid which is
liable to distort competition.

distortions

of

(32)

The Commission therefore concludes that the measure
affords the beneficiaries certain specific tax advantages
reducing the costs they normally bear in the course of
their business.

(36)

State resources

(33)

The Commission considers that the advantages at issue
are 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 attributable to the State as it consists in
the forgoing of tax revenues normally collected by the
Italian Treasury.

Effect on competition and trade

(34)

Considering the effects of the measure, the Commission
confirms the appraisal made when initiating the formal
investigation procedure, namely that the measure is liable
to distort competition and have an effect on trade
between Member States because the beneficiaries may
be operating on international markets and involved in
trade and other business activities in markets where
competition is intense. Following the settled case law
of the Court (7), for a measure to distort competition it
is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with
other undertakings on markets open to competition.

(35)

In applying for admission to listing on a regulated stock
exchange a company seeks to achieve several significant
increasing and
financial objectives, which include (a)

(7) Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR

II-717.

diversifying the sources of corporate financing with a
view to pursuing asset and stock acquisitions;
(b)
increasing the financial standing of the listed company
with respect to debt holders, suppliers and other creditors
accepting the stock as a guarantee of debt; and (c)
obtaining a market valuation for the company, so as to
facilitate merger and acquisition transactions at any
future
tax
advantage on companies that decide to seek a listing,
the scheme improves their competitive position and
financial standing vis-à-vis their competitors. Given that
the
Italian beneficiaries
operating on markets where intra-Community trade
takes place,
for this
reason too, the scheme affects trade and distorts compe-
tition.

the Commission considers that,

extraordinary

effects may

conferring

date. By

favour

above

an

that,

ten companies were

as of 31
The Commission moreover notes
December 2004,
admitted to
listing on the Italian stock markets (a 100% increase
on the previous year) (8). Under the scheme, the newly
listed companies are entitled to tax benefits in proportion
to their future profits. The companies obtaining a listing
on the Italian stock markets belong to various sectors,
ranging from manufacturing to public utilities, which are
open to international competition. Neither the Italian
authorities nor
third parties have argued that, on
account of certain specific features of the beneficiaries,
the advantages granted to them do not affect competition
and intra Community trade. In the light of projections
based on the profits generated by the beneficiaries in the
three years prior to their listing, the Commission has
the companies could benefit
established that each of
the
from considerable tax reductions. For example,
Commission has calculated that the tax benefits which
would be enjoyed by one beneficiary alone over the
to €75
period 2004-07 could potentially amount
million. However, because of
above-mentioned
clause in Article 11 of DL 269/2003 limiting the
tax concession could not exceed
benefits,
Italy’s
€11,7 million over
three-year period.
the
submissions do not, however, demonstrate that
the
benefits accruing to any individual beneficiary would
remain below the limit for de minimis aid.

the actual

the

(37)

The Commission concludes that the distortion of compe-
tition deriving from the scheme in the different sectors
where the beneficiaries operate is significant, considering
that the beneficiaries are often leaders in their respective
business sectors in Italy, and this justifies the negative
appraisal of the scheme.

(8) These were: (1) Trevisan SpA, industrial painting plants; (2) Isagro
(3) Digital Multimedia Technologies (DMT)
SpA, pharmaceuticals,
SpA, media,
(5)
Procomac SpA, bottling plants; (6) Azimut Holding SpA, financial
services; (7) Greenvision Ambiente SpA, services, (8) Panariagroup
SpA, ceramics;
(10) Geox SpA,
clothing.

(4) Terna SpA, public utilities

IT applications;

(9) RGI SpA,

(electricity);

1.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/47

Legality of the scheme

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 Treaty. In so far as the measure constitutes
state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the
into effect without prior
Treaty and has been put
approval from the Commission,
it is to be classed as
unlawful aid.

(45)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

Compatibility

In so far as the measure constitutes state aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, its compatibility
must be assessed in the light of the exceptions provided
for in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.

The Italian authorities have not explicitly challenged the
Commission’s assessment, set out
in its letter of 18
March 2004 initiating the formal
that
none of the exceptions provided for in Article 87(2)
the Treaty, whereby state aid may be
and (3) of
considered compatible with the
common market,
applies in the present case. Nor has the Commission
found any other elements that could invalidate this
conclusion.

investigation,

The advantages in question are either unrelated to any
expenses or linked to expenses that are not eligible for
aid under the Community block exemption regulations
or guidelines.

the
The exceptions provided for in Article 87(2) of
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.

(43) Neither does

the scheme qualify for

the exception
allowed by Article 87(3)(a) of
the Treaty for aid to
promote the economic development of areas where the
standard of living is abnormally low or where there is
serious underemployment, because
in
question applies throughout Italy and not only in the
Article 87(3)(a)
the
scheme does not appear to contribute in any way to
the development of such areas.

the measure

areas of

country.

Finally,

the

(44)

In the same way, the scheme cannot be considered to be
an important 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 Treaty; nor does it
have as its object the promotion of culture and heritage
conservation as provided for by Article 87(3)(d) of the
Treaty.

Finally, the scheme in question must be examined in the
the Treaty. This Article
light of Article 87(3)(c) of
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
business and must therefore be regarded as operating
aid that is incompatible with the common market.

linked to specific investments,

VI. CONCLUSIONS

(46)

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
general ban on such aid and is therefore incompatible
with the common market. The Commission also finds
that Italy has unlawfully implemented the measure in
question.

(47) Where unlawfully 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.

(48) Although in this case the procedure was closed shortly
after the end of the first tax year of application of the
scheme and therefore before the tax due by most bene-
ficiaries had to be paid, the Commission cannot rule out
the possibility that
firms may already have
benefited from the aid in terms, for example, of lower
advance payments of taxes relating to the current tax
year.

some

(49)

the

investigation,

scheme’s potential beneficiaries of

The Commission notes that, following the opening of the
Italian authorities publicly
formal
the
warned the
possible consequences should the Commission find that
the measure in question constituted incompatible aid.
The Commission nevertheless considers
it necessary
that any aid already made available to the beneficiaries
should be recovered.

L 94/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.4.2006

Article 3

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

Recovery

shall be

2.
and in
accordance with the procedures of national law provided that
they allow the immediate and effective implementation of the
Decision.

effected without delay

The recovery shall be completed at the earliest oppor-
3.
tunity.
In particular, 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 tax year current on the date of notification of this Decision.

4.
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.

The interest shall be calculated in accordance with Chapter

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

6. Within two months of the date of notification of this
Decision, Italy shall enjoin all beneficiaries of the aid referred
to in Article 1 to reimburse the unlawful aid, with interest.

Article 4

inform the Commission of

Within two months of the date of notification of this Decision,
Italy shall
the measures already
taken and planned to comply with it. This information shall
be provided using the questionnaire in Annex I to this Decision.
Within the same period of
transmit all
documents giving evidence that the recovery proceedings have
been initiated against the beneficiaries of the unlawful aid.

Italy shall

time,

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Italy.

Done at Brussels, 16 March 2005.

For the Commission

Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission

(50)

(51)

(52)

the

Italy should be required to enjoin the
To that end,
potential beneficiaries of
scheme, within two
months of the date of notification of this Decision, to
reimburse the aid with interest calculated in accordance
with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No
794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed
rules
the EC
the application of Article 93 of
Treaty (9). In particular, where the aid has already been
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.

for

Italy should be required to provide the Commission with
the necessary information, compiling a list of the bene-
ficiaries concerned and indicating clearly the measures
planned and already taken to secure immediate and
effective recovery of the unlawful state aid.
It should
also be called upon to forward to the Commission,
within two months of the notification of this Decision,
all documents giving evidence that recovery proceedings
have been initiated against
the
unlawful aid.

the beneficiaries of

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

admitted to listing on a

tax incentives
for
The state aid scheme in the form of
companies
regulated European
market, provided for by Articles 1(1)(d) and 11 of Decree-
Law No 269 of 30 September 2003, which Italy has put into
effect, is incompatible with the common market.

Article 2

Italy shall abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 with
effect from the tax year current on the date of notification of
this Decision.

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

1.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/49

ANNEX

Information regarding the implementation of Commission Decision of 16.03.2005 on aid scheme C8/2004
(ex NN164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies

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 below.

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 interests)