CELEX: C1996/016/34
Language: en
Date: 1996-01-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Fintecna SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-193/95)

20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 16/ 15
established in Termoli ( Italy), Societâ Fondiaria Industriale       Pursuant to Article 92 ( 3 ) of the Treaty, the Commission
Romagnola SpA ( SFIR ), established in Cesena ( Italy),              made the authorization of that aid subject to a number of
Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, established in Pontelagoscuro                  conditions, some entailing specific legal obligations of a
( Italy ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, and by        highly restrictive nature, with which the applicant must
Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with           comply. In particular, the applicant is required to:
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against the
Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jan-Peter Hix and           — reduce Iritecna's liquidation debts by selling all its assets
Marco-Umberto Moricca ) — application for suspension of                  to (private ) third parties and assigning the proceeds to
the operation of Article 1 ( f) of Council Regulation ( EC )             cover those debts,
No 1534/95 of 29 June 1995 fixing, for the 1995/96
marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white            — assign the entire proceeds of that sale, to be set off
sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum                 against Iritecna's debts, even if those proceeds exceed the
prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for              amount forecast in the decision; the Commission
storage costs ( OJ No L 148 , p . 11 ) — the President of the            estimated that the privatization of Fintecna might raise
Court of First Instance made an order on 7 November 1995 ,
                                                                         Lit 1 653 billion, matching the price paid by Fintecna for
the operative part of which is as follows:                               the Iritecna shares .
1 . the application for the adoption of interim measures is
      dismissed:                                                     The applicant claims, first, that the Commission cannot
                                                                     require it to reduce the aid deriving from Iritecna's
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          liquidation by selling all its assets to private third parties and
                                                                     setting the proceeds against Iritecna's debts. The applicant
                                                                     maintains that the aid in question was directly
                                                                     proportionate to the liquidation and restructuring effected
                                                                     and could therefore be authorized in accordance with the
                                                                     criteria laid down by the Commission itself concerning State
                                                                     aids for the restructuring of undertakings .
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Fintecna SpA
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-193/95                              Secondly, the applicant submits that, even assuming that it
                                                                     was under an obligation to help reduce Iritecna's debts, the
                           ( 96/C 16/34 )
                                                                     Commission has made its performance of that obligation
                                                                     subject to conditions which are excessively restrictive and
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                    totally unjustified.
                                   %
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    As regards the need to prevent the distortion of competition,
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995              the applicant points out that the sacrifices made in terms of
by Fintecna SpA, whose registered office is in Rome (Italy),         reducing the group's economic capacity more than qualify
represented by Professor Antonio Tizzano and Gian                    for the aid in question. Furthermore, that aid merely covered
Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for         the costs directly connected with the restructuring and
service in Brussels at the Chambers of Professor Tizzano,            liquidation of Iritecna , and did not finance any other
36 Place du Grand Sablon .                                           intervention liable to distort competition.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Nor can it be contended that the contested conditions are
— annul Article 1 (4 ) of the contested Decision,
                                                                     justifiable in view of the fact that the undertaking's property
                                                                     is publicly, not privately, owned. That would be contrary to
                                                                     the principle of equal treatment of private and public
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             undertakings laid down by Articles 222 and 90 of the
                                                                     Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a company in which the IRI has a 100%                 Lastly, the applicant asserts that, in the present case, the
controlling interest and to which the assets of Iritecna ( an        Commission should merely have verified that, of all the
IRI subholding, subsequently placed in liquidation), which           various possible options, the plan drawn up by the holding
were either economically viable or potentially such if               company ( IRI ) constituted the most reasonable choice from
removed from Iritecna during its restructuring, were                 the financial point of view.
transferred for Lit 1 653 billion, seeks the partial annulment
of the Commission's Decision of 7 June 1995 concerning aid
of approximately ECU 2 116 million granted to Iritecna by
the Italian State .