Case T-527/13: Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2013-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, dairy industry, reimbursement of aid








C_2013344EN.01006601.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/66





Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-527/13)
2013/C 344/121
Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, P. Grasso, lawyers, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, on State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy);










—


in the alternative, annul the part of that decision (points (b),(c) and (d) of Article 2(4)) by which the obligation to recover aid is extended to cover the aid resulting from Council Decision No 2003/530/EC;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government contests Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, relating to State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy).
By that decision, the European Commission:






—


declared that the deferral of payment of the milk levy due by 31 December 2010, adopted by Italy in that very month (December 2010), constitutes – also on account of the procedure to be followed for its implementation – State aid incompatible with the internal market;










—


declared that that deferral of payment amounted to failure to respect the conditions laid down in Council Decision No 2003/530/EC, constituting in consequence State aid incompatible with the internal market;










—


directed Italy to arrange to have the incompatible aid, together with interest, refunded by the beneficiaries of the deferral of payment.




In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas:






1.


First plea: infringement of Article 3(7) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (OJ 2007 L 337, p. 35).






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied that provision on the basis of the erroneous assumption that the existing aid, authorised by Council Decision No 2003/530/EC of 16 July 2003, constituted the maximum amount that could be granted to milk producers and that, accordingly, any additional aid measure — even falling within the de minimis exception (and even entailing only an absolutely marginal amount) — would mean that, ipso jure, the aggregate amount of the aid would exceed the permissible level.














2.


Second plea: infringement of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007, Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1), and failure to state adequate reasons.






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 — which concerns the aggregation of various forms of aid, each of which, considered in isolation, comes within the de minimis exception — to a case in which the de minimis aid was added to existing aid. Furthermore, the decision erred by characterising the contested measure as an alteration of existing aid, which is significant for the purposes of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation No 659/1999. The six-month deferral of the deadline for paying one of the annual instalments constituted a separate measure and, in any event, did not result in a substantial alteration of the existing aid. Moreover, it did not culminate in an increase exceeding 20 % of the existing aid scheme’s original budget and had no bearing on the assessment of the compatibility of that aid scheme. In any event, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons as regards those points.