Το Δικαστήριο αποφάνθηκε, για μία ακόμη φορά, ότι η αναζήτηση κρατικής ενισχύσεως παρανόμως χορηγηθείσας δεν μπορεί, καταρχήν, να θεωρείται ως δυσανάλογο μέτρο σε σχέση με τους σκοπούς των διατάξεων της Συνθήκης περί κρατικών ενισχύσεων, ούτε ως κατάχρηση εκ μέρους της Επιτροπής της διακριτικής της εξουσίας, δεδομένου ότι ένα τέτοιο μέτρο αποκαθιστά, απλώς, την προγενέστερη κατάσταση. Απαντώντας σε ένα τελευταίο επιχείρημα της Ιταλικής Κυβερνήσεως, το Δικαστήριο επιβεβαίωσε, τέλος, ότι καίτοι ο δικαιούχος μιας παρανόμως χορηγηθείσας ενισχύσεως μπορεί να επικαλεσθεί εξαιρετικές περιστάσεις λόγω των οποίων θεμιτώς σχημάτισε την πεποίθηση ότι η συγκεκριμένη ενίσχυση είναι νόμιμη, αντιτασσόμενος στην επιστροφή της εν λόγω ενισχύσεως, εντούτοις, κράτος μέλος οι αρχές του οποίου χορήγησαν ενίσχυση κατά
The Court took the view that, by ordering MD & D, as the company acquiring SiMI, to repay the State aid granted to the latter, the Commission had failed to have regard to the principles governing the recovery of State aid. The Court pointed out in this connection that ‘where an undertaking that has benefited from unlawful State aid is bought at the market price, that is to say at the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions was ready to pay for that company in the situation it was in, in particular after having enjoyed State aid, the aid element was assessed at the market price and included in the purchase price. In such circumstances, the buyer cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage in relation to other market operators’ (paragraph 80). The Court also annulled the contested decision on the ground that it ordered the hive-off company to repay the aid granted to the company the activity of which it was intended to continue. The Court ruled that, although ‘it is certainly possible that, in the event that hive-off companies are created in order to continue some of the activities of the undertaking that received the aid, where that undertaking has gone bankrupt, those companies may also, if necessary, be required to repay the aid in question, where it is established that they actually continue to benefit from the competitive advantage linked with the receipt of the aid. This could be the case, inter alia, where those hive-off companies acquire the assets of the company in liquidation without paying the market price in return or where it is established that the creation of such companies evades the obligation to repay that aid’, the mere fact that the plant of the beneficiary undertaking was leased for a certain period by such a company did not necessarily mean that the latter enjoyed the competitive advantage linked with the aid granted to the lessor almost three years before the creation of the lessee (paragraphs 86, 88 and 89). As the obligation imposed on MD & D to repay the aid granted to SMI, as well as its extension to ‘any other firm to which SMI’s, SiMI’s or MD & D’s assets have been or will be transferred in order to evade the consequences of this decision’, had also been annulled by the Court, SMI and SiMI alone remained under an obligation to repay the aid which had been granted to them respectively. In Case C-345/02 Pearle and Others (judgment of 15 July 2004, not yet published in the ECR), which was a preliminary reference from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), the questions for resolution concerned the