CELEX: 62013TN0219
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-219/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission

8.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 164/23
            
         Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission
   (Case T-219/13)
   2013/C 164/39
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Pietro Ferracci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2012, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The present action contests Commission Decision C(2012) 9461 final of 19 December 2012 declaring the aid granted, on the basis of the exemption from the municipal tax on real estate (ICI), to non-commercial entities for the pursuit of certain activities to be incompatible with the common market, without ordering the recovery of that aid, and declaring that the favourable treatment granted to the Church and to some sports clubs through Article 149 of the Testo unico delle imposte sul reddito (TUIR) (Codified Law on Income Tax), as well as the exemption from the IMU (Imposta Municipale Propria: the Municipality’s own tax) granted to some entities for the pursuit of specific activities, does not constitute State aid.
   In support of his action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement, misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In that regard, the applicant submits that, despite taking the view that Articles 107 and 108 TFEU had been infringed, the Commission did not order the recovery of the State aid mentioned above. In that regard, the applicant argues that there are no exceptional circumstances which would make recovery of the aid completely impossible and, in any event, it has not been proved that recovery would be completely impossible.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through Article 149(4) of the TUIR does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that there was no selective advantage; the applicant, by contrast, maintains that the legislation in question does confer a selective advantage upon ecclesiastic institutions recognised in civil law and amateur sports clubs and also meets all the other conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through the ‘IMU Exemption’ does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that the beneficiaries of the IMU Exemption are not ‘undertakings’. The applicant, by contrast, maintains that those beneficiaries are ‘undertakings’ as defined in Community law and that all the conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid are met.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision must be annulled in view of the inadequate statement of reasons provided therein in relation to all the pleas set out above, in infringement of Article 296 TFEU.