Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-335/19 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, July 05, 2019

• Resolution Date: July 05, 2019
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-335/19

Action brought on 3 June 2019 - Cantieri del Mediterraneo v Commission

(Case T-335/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cantieri del Mediterraneo S.p.A. (Naples, Italy) (represented by: F. Munari and L. Calzolari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Article 1 of the contested decision under Article 263 et seq. TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2018) 6037 final of 20 September 2018 on State aid SA.36112 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Italy for the Port Authority of Naples and Cantieri del Mediterraneo S.p.A. (‘the contested decision’).

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and failure to observe the principles of good administration, equal treatment, non-discrimination and the adversarial principle, failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

The applicant claims in this respect that:

the contested decision was adopted in proceedings which did not safeguard the rights of defence of Cantieri del Mediterraneo S.p.A. (‘CAMED’), since, unlike the complainant, CAMED’s views were not heard at a hearing; and

the contested decision was adopted at the end of proceedings in which equal treatment of the complainant and the beneficiary of the alleged aid (‘equality of arms’) was not ensured.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of good administration, legal certainty and effective judicial protection as a result of the unlawful revocation of the 2006 decision to take no further action in the proceedings concerning the same measure now classified by the contested decision as aid more than ten years later.

The applicant claims in this respect that:

the contested decision should have declared that the revocation of the 2006 decision to take no further action in the proceedings concerning the same State measure was unlawful and should have found that that decision to take no further action precludes a finding that that measure constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market; and

the contested decision should have stated that the [2006] decision to take no further action presupposes that the Commission has determined that the measure at issue is lawful and, therefore, prevents the...