Case T-98/16: Action brought on 4 March 2016 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2016-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, bank, control of State aid, credit guarantee, financial aid, holding company








C_2016145EN.01003401.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/34






Action brought on 4 March 2016 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-98/16)
(2016/C 145/42)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul European Commission Decision No C (2015) 9526 final of 23 December 2015, notified on the same date, on the State aid SA.39451 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Italy for BANCA TERCAS (Cassa di risparmio della provincia di Teramo S.p.A.);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission declared that a contribution amounting to EUR 295,14 million paid to Banca Tercas by the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi constitutes State aid awarded in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU which is incompatible with the internal market. That contribution is the result of three separate measures: a non-repayable contribution of EUR 265 million (measure 1), a guarantee for EUR 35 million (with an aid element which can be calculated as EUR 0,14 million) granted in order to cover the credit exposure of Banca Tercas towards an Italian group of undertakings (measure 2) and, finally, a further non-repayable contribution of EUR 30 million, to cover tax costs of the operation (measure 3).
In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.








1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts concerning the public nature of the resources to which the disputed measures relate.






—


The applicant submits in this respect that the decision incorrectly classifies the resources used by the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi as public resources, without taking into account, in particular, the principles established by the Court of Justice in the judgments of 15 July 2004 in Pearle and Others, C-345/02, and of 30 May 2013 in Doux Élevage, C-677/11.
















2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts concerning the imputability of the contested measures to the State.






—


The applicant submits in this regard that the decision is incorrect in so far as it considers the contested measures to be imputable to the State, without taking into account the fact that they derive from an autonomous decision of a private body, namely the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, and that no public authority exercised any undue influence or pressure for the purposes of reaching that decision.
















3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts concerning the granting of a selective advantage. Incorrect application of the MEIP (market-economy-investor principle) criterion.






—


The applicant submits in this regard that the decision is incorrect in so far as it failed to consider that the contested measures also complied with the so-called MEIP criterion, since they appeared economically advantageous to the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, compared with the alternative scenario, which would have resulted from the liquidation of Banca Tercas.
















4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts in respect of the assessment of compatibility of the alleged State aid with the internal market.






—


The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission, finally, erred in taking the view that the disputed measures were incompatible with the internal market, even in the event that they should be classified as State aid.