do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-304/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2009-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid recipient, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, redemption, tax incentive








C_2009256EN.01001102.xml










24.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/11





Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-304/09)
2009/C 256/21
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and E. Righini, agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (notified on 17 March 2005 under document No C(2005) 591) (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty.










—


Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit within which Italian Republic was required to withdraw the aid scheme and recover the unlawfully paid aid expired two months after the date of notification of the decision in question. More than four years later, the Italian authorities have recovered only approximately 25 % of the aid.
Case T-302/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission
Date: 2009-07-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law, marketing, production aid, professional association, research and development, restriction on competition, social-security contribution, technical cooperation








C_2009244EN.01001002.xml










10.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/10





Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission
(Case T-302/09)
2009/C 244/16
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Comité national interprofessionnel de la pomme de terre (CNIPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) to be taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.
In addition, the applicant submits that there is a breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the Commission dealt in generally and in the same way with a number of distinct CVL schemes.


(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.
Extract from the Decision concerning Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions
Date: 2009-07-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Luxembourg, bank, company in difficulties, decontamination, financial institution, liquidation








C_2009177EN.01001501.xml










30.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/15





Extract from the Decision concerning Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions
2009/C 177/05

HOMOLOGATION OF THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN OF KAUPTHING BANK LUXEMBOURG S.A.

By judgment rendered on 8 July 2009, the Tribunal d’Arrondissement de et à Luxembourg, second chamber, (District Court) sitting in commercial matters, ruling in public audience, following the hearing in council chamber of the administrators, the representative of the société anonyme Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A., the representatives of the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (‘CSSF’) and the representative of the Public Prosecutor,






 


‘homologates the restructuring plan of the société anonyme Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. dated 26 May 2009, under the suspensive condition of obtaining the confirmation by the European Commission that the intervention of the Luxembourg State in the framework of the restructuring plan does not constitute an incompatible State aid in the sense of the Treaty establishing the European Union;










 


states that the agreements and the Terms and Conditions attached to the restructuring plan will be in effect from the accomplishment of the demerger resulting in the Pillar Securitisation and Banque Havilland, without prejudice of their signature by any third party;










 


ascertains that the suspension of payments period of the Bank ceases concomitantly to the approval of the demerger of the Bank by its shareholders resulting in the dissolution without winding-up of the Bank, under the condition that this general meeting takes place at an earlier point in time than the ending of the suspension of payments period.’




No application may be brought by any of the parties or by any third party to set aside the judgment.
The Administrators
PricewaterhouseCoopers S.àr.l., represented by Mrs Emmanuelle Caruel-Henniaux, and Me Franz Fayot
Case C-303/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2009-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid recipient, control of State aid, natural disaster, redemption








C_2009256EN.01001101.xml










24.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/11





Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-303/09)
2009/C 256/20
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and E. Righini, agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the prolongation of the ‘Tremonti-bis’ law in favour of municipalities seriously affected by natural disaters in 2002 (notified on 22 October 2004 under document No C(2004) 3893) (OJ 2005 L 100, p. 46) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and the EC Treaty.










—


Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit by which Italian Republic was required to withdraw the aid scheme and recover the unlawfully paid aid expired two months after the date of notification of the decision in question. More than four years later, the Italian authorities have yet to recover more than 25 % of the aid granted, in respect of which an order for payment has been issued, and have yet to communicate to the Commission the amount of aid paid to beneficiaries who were not entitled in the first place to benefit from the scheme.