CELEX: C1996/318/31
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 August 1996 by EFIM - Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifatturiera, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-127/96)

No C 318/16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
    decision of 29 May 1995 concerning certain State aid                  during the period in which it was producing in order to
    granted by Italy to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA                      supply the needs of the 'defence sector' is covered by the
    ( COM(96 ) 1643 final ),                                              derogation provided for by Article 223 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the
                                                                         Treaty . In addition, the financial assistance subsequent
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these                         to 1987 can be explained by considerations relating to
    proceedings .                                                        the 'group policy' pursued by the controlling
                                                                         company .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                   — Misapplication of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and (c ) of the
                                                                         Treaty.
The applicant in these proceedings is a second smelting                  In this connection the applicant maintains that the
foundry forming part of the EFIM group . Until 1986 two                  Commission infringed that provision, in that it failed to
companies in the defence sector were shareholders in the                 assess correctly the aid granted for reorganization and
applicant company. By the contested decision, the                        restructuring and the importance of the fact that the
Commission declared that State aid alleged to have been                  company is established in a particularly disadvantaged
granted to the applicant was incompatible with the common                region .
market and also that the aid was unlawful inasmuch as prior
notification had not been given in accordance with
Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has
moreover ordered the aid to be repaid.
In this respect the applicant puts forward the following
grounds for contesting the decision :                                Action brought on 12 August 1996 by EFIM — Ente
                                                                     Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifatturiera, in
                                                                     liquidation, against the Commission of the European
— Breach of procedural rules and of the principal audi                                         Communities
   alteram partem.
                                                                                            ( Case T-127/96 )
   According to the applicant, in its communication of                                        ( 96/C 318/31 )
    initiation of the procedure the Commission merely
    referred to the financial support to the sum of Lit 52 000                      (Language of the case: Italian)
    million received by EFIM and loans guaranteed by the
    State of the sum of Lit 10 000 million, without
   mentioning other presumed transfers of funds or the              An action against the Commission of the European
   dates on which those took place . Thus, in that                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
   communication, the defendant did not refer, directly or           Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
   indirectly, to much of the aid challenged in the                  by EFIM — Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria
   decision .                                                       Manifatturiera , in liquidation, whose registered office is at
                                                                     Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
                                                                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
— Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate         service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36
   expectations, and failure to observe the five-year               place du Grand Sablon .
   limitation period .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
   In the decision, the Commission challenged the grant of
   aid dating from 1985 to 1992 . By so doing, it declared          — annul in whole or, in the alternative, in part ( as regards
   acts and relationships going back a long period of time to            the points referred to in this action ) the Commission 's
   be unlawful . The applicant considers that the defendant              decision of 29 Mai 1995 concerning certain State aid
   ought not to have included such remote acts and                       granted by Italy to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA
   relationships in its legal appraisal . A precise limitation           ( COM(96 ) 1643 final ),
   period must be complied with even with regard to State
   aid; by analogy with the period fixed for other matters          — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
   ( Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and               proceedings .
   Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74 ), that period should be of
   five years ' duration .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
— Breach of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty,
                                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those
                                                                    in Case T-126/96 Breda Fucine Meridionali ( M.
   in that the Commission did not establish the nature of
   the aid involved. Specifically, the defendant altogether         (') See page 15 of this Official Journal .
   failed to assess the aid in question in the light of the
   situation as it was when the aid was granted. In that
   regard the applicant states that the assistance given