CELEX: C2002/056/36
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-4/02: Action brought on 16 January 2002 by Arca Delio eredi and Others against Commission of the European Communities

C 56/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.3.2002
Action brought on 16 January 2002 by Arca Delio                          Sardinian agricultural undertakings which had made invest-
eredi and Others against Commission of the European                      ments involving financial commitments which they were not
                         Communities                                     able to honour for various reasons, such as prolonged periods
                                                                         of drought, crises in the markets, lack of organisation in the
                         (Case T-4/02)                                   marketing stage of the products and high interest rates.
                        (2002/C 56/36)                                   In support of their arguments, the applicants allege infringe-
                                                                         ment and misapplication of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty,
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                        the ‘specific Commission practice for aid to farms in difficulty’,
                                                                         the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
                                                                         restructuring firms in difficulty’, Commission decision on ‘de
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                minimis’ aid No 96/C/68/06, Council Regulation (EC)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92
European Communities on 16 January 2002 by the abovemen-                 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to
tioned applicants, represented by Costantino Murgia and                  certain categories of horizontal State aid, (1) and Commission
Andrea Delitala, lawyers.                                                Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the
                                                                         application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis
                                                                         aid; (2) the applicants also allege misuse of powers.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     uphold the present application; annul the contested                The applicants point out, in particular, the extremely serious
      decision; and make an appropriate order as to costs.               situation of the recipient undertakings, the situation in which
                                                                         Sardinia finds itself from the point of view of its economic
                                                                         development, the little likelihood that the aid scheme in issue
                                                                         will have an impact on trade or compromise or distort the
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         rules on competition, and the fact that the assistance granted
                                                                         amounts to less than EUR 100 000 for each recipient, a
The applicants in the present case are challenging the decision          threshold deemed admissible and which is not harmful to
of the Commission relating to aid in the form of consolidation           competition under the de minimis applicable in State aid
loans, granted by the Sardinia Region to certain farmers and             matters. Furthermore, so far as concerns the practice for aid to
agricultural undertakings established there. In the contested            farms in difficulty, the applicants state that the aid was
decision, the defendant finds that Italy has failed to fulfil its        intended to cover earlier contractual obligations relating to
obligation to give prior notification of the aid measures at the         investments, does not exceed the levels or the rates laid down
draft stage, implemented those same measures before the                  by the Commission for the agricultural products processing
Commission has given its opinion and granted aid incompat-               and marketing sector, bearing in mind that Sardinia is an
ible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92             Objective 1 area, and that the aid in issue was also intended to
(now Article 87) of the Treaty and which does not, moreover,             offset fluctuations in currency values and was granted to the
meet the exemption conditions provided for by Article 87(2)              applicants as owners of farms which are sufficiently likely to
and (3).                                                                 regain economic viability.
The aid which constitutes the subject matter of the present              (1) OJ L 142, 1998, p. 1.
case was granted in response to the crisis being faced by                (2) OJ L 10, 2001, p. 30.