CELEX: 62017TN0491
Language: en
Date: 2017-08-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-491/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission

2.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 330/14
            
         Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission
   (Case T-491/17)
   (2017/C 330/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Istituzione Pubblica di Assistenza e Beneficienza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ (Pederobba, Italy) (represented by: G. Maso, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   annul, in its entirety or in individual parts, the Commission decision adopted on 27 March 2017 (SA.38825) State aid — Italy, presumed State aid for private providers of social and healthcare services.
   
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that Article 107 TFEU has been infringed and that the Commission erred in finding that the selective exclusion of public providers of social and healthcare services from INPS (National Social Welfare Institute) maternity insurance and from the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities was justified.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, based on the State origin of the aid, on the ground that, according to the applicant, the funds intended to cover private companies’ costs relating to maternity insurance and the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities are paid by the INPS and, consequently, by the Italian State via State resources.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, such measures favour private companies by conferring on them an advantage over public providers of the same services, which must instead bear in full the costs relating to periods of absence in respect of maternity leave and care provided to family members with serious disabilities, resulting in serious financial consequences.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, the contested measures affect trade between Member States inasmuch as they favour multinational groups and Italian companies with foreign capital contribution which invest in Italy for profit-making purposes and, by contrast, penalise smaller public providers which operate for non-profit purposes by distorting the structure of their labour costs.