CELEX: 62011CN0631
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-631/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

21.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/8
            
         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
   (Case C-631/11 P)
   2012/C 118/13
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi, avvocato)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/085;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.
   The first ground of appeal concerns breach of Article 107(3) TFEU. In particular, the appellant alleges breach and misapplication of the principle of the necessity of aid and of the principle of the incentive effect, as a result of an excessively formalistic approach, which is contrary to the principle that the substance must take precedence over the form, and failure to take account of specific details relating to issues of transitional law which characterise the case in question.
   The second ground of appeal concerns breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (1) The bases of this ground of appeal arise from the specific intertemporal circumstances of the case, which were disregarded in the judgment under appeal. The General Court went beyond what is prescribed by the relevant case-law, requiring of the economic operator a degree of diligence that is not possible in practice, given that the requirement that an application for aid be made before work commences is a Community rule which was introduced at exactly the same time as the facts of the case and, therefore, the undertaking could not have been aware of it at the time at which it made its decision.
   
      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.