Case C-136/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 March 2013 by Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, Cooperativa Mare Azzurro v Commission
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, aid to undertakings, reimbursement of aid, social-security contribution, tax relief








C_2013147EN.01001501.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/15





Appeal brought on 18 March 2013 by Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, Cooperativa Mare Azzurro v Commission
(Case C-136/13 P)
2013/C 147/25
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi e A. Veronese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio am C., European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul and/or vary the order under appeal, the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013, notified to the appellants on 23 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl and Others against the Commission, seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50);










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants allege errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, first, with regard to the obligation to state reasons for the Commission’s decisions on State aid and, second, with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof as regards the conditions set out in Article 107(1) TFEU.
By the order under appeal, the General Court did not follow the rulings of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that the Commission’s decision ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. Even though the decision lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to point to any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.
On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to specify the ‘modalities’ for any such verification. Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the matters essential for the purpose of showing whether the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraphs 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’.