CELEX: C2002/109/56
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-66/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

4.5.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/33
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Italian                            under Article 87(3) of the Treaty. That constitutes not
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                         only a methodological error but also a failure to state
                              munities                                       reasons.
                          (Case C-66/02)                               (d) Specifically as regards the reference to Article 87(3)(b) of
                                                                             the Treaty, reconstruction of the origins of the Ciampi
                                                                             law and of Legislative Decree No 153/99 clearly shows
                         (2002/C 109/56)                                     how the Italian legislature sought, by means of the
                                                                             various measures adopted, to bring about a significant
                                                                             structural change in the Italian market for banking
                                                                             services: the full and final privatisation of all Italian banks.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    In order to achieve that objective it was necessary for the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 banks to divest themselves of any controlling interests
Communities on 28 February 2002 by the Italian Republic,                     still held in savings banks and local banks. The elimination
represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, and M. Fiorilli,                  or reduction of the Italian banks’ substantial and persist-
avvocato dello Stato.                                                        ent holdings of public funds, or at least of funds that are
                                                                             not attractive to private investors did not, contrary to
                                                                             the Commission’s clear finding, distort competition by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  favouring the recipient undertakings over others but, as
                                                                             in the case of the southern Italian public banks, resulted
                                                                             in the reduction of distortions existing prior to the reform
—     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 11 December 2001                    in question between genuinely private banks and those
      in proceeding no C-54/A/2000/EC against the Italian                    which are private in form only, but not as regards
      Republic, notified on 13 January 2002, in that there are               the control of capital. In the opinion of the Italian
      insufficient grounds for holding that the fiscal measures              Government, the full and final privatisation of the Italian
      accompanying the reform of the Italian banking system                  banks constitutes a ‘project of common European interest’
      constitute ‘State aid’;                                                which, under Article 87(3)(b), justifies a system of aid to
                                                                             promote its implementation.
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Italian Government claims that the contested decision is
unlawful for the following reasons:
                                                                       Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
(a)   The Commission failed to comply with the obligation to                   of the European Communities against Ireland
      state the reasons upon which the adopted decision was
      based.
                                                                                                  (Case C-67/02)
(b) The law, which has been called in question with regard
      to the effect on competition of the accompanying fiscal                                    (2002/C 109/57)
      measure, must be regarded as the final part of a process
      of reform of the Italian system of credit and, therefore, as
      part of an economic reform which should be assessed in
      its general and Community law context. The relevance of
      that law cannot be appreciated unless the state of the           An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      sector prior to the reform is taken into account. The            Justice of the European Communities on 28 February 2002 by
      contested decision wholly fails to consider those aspects.       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                       by Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service
(c)   In addressing the Italian Government’s counter-argu-             in Luxembourg
      ments the Commission does not distinguish between
      those concerned with the issue whether the fiscal
      measures under investigation may be characterised as             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      ‘State aid’ and those concerned with the alternative issue
      whether, if those measures are found to be ‘State aid’,
      they qualify for exemption. The Commission possessed             —     declare that Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations
      all the information required to assess whether the law in              under Council Directive 79/923/EEC (1) on the quality
      question constituted a prohibited ‘State aid’ within the               required of shellfish waters by reason of its failure to
      meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, or whether it may              adopt programmes for all of its designated shellfish
      be considered to be compatible with the common market                  waters in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive;