Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

C 262/50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.10.


Action brought on 4 August 2004 by Brandt Italia SpA question, which in fact gives rise to the same consequences as
against the Commission of the European Communities those already provided for by the general provisions of Law No
223/91. According to the applicant, it was because, when
examining Decree 23/2003, the Commission classified the
(Case T-323/04) measure as being similar to a general aid scheme that it
ordered the Italian Government to recover the financial benefit
which Brandt allegedly received on an individual basis by virtue
(2004/C 262/93) of the decree. The Commission, by ordering repayment of an
individual aid in the context of a decision relating to an aid
scheme, infringed Article 88 EC, and also failed to comply with
(Language of the case: Italian) the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 regarding the
adoption of provisional recovery measures.

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of The applicant also alleges infringement of Articles 88 and 89
the European Communities on 4 August 2004 against the EC and of Regulations Nos 994/98 and 2204/2002. In that
Commission of the European Communities by Brandt Italia connection, it complains that the Commission declared to be
SpA, represented by Martijn van Empel, Claudio Visco and retrospectively illegal a measure potentially covered by the
Salvatore Lamarca, lawyers. exemption rules contained in Regulation No 2204/2002,
which was therefore classifiable as existing aid within the
meaning of Article 88 EC. Moreover, the applicant claims, the
The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should: Commission unlawfully arrogated to itself the right to deter-
mine that Decree 23/2003 was not covered by Regulation No
2204/2002, thereby exceeding the limits applicable to its
— declare void, and accordingly annul, Commission Decision power of intervention under the combined provisions of
C(2004)930 final of 30 March 2004; Article 89 EC and of Regulations Nos 994/98 and 2204/2002.

— in the alternative, declare the decision to be partially void,

as regards only Article 3 thereof in so far as it orders the The applicant also observes that Article 3 of the contested deci-
Italian State to recover illegally disbursed aid; sion, which imposes on Italy an obligation to recover the
alleged State aid from the beneficiaries of the measure, breaches
— order the Commission to pay the costs. the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Pleas and main arguments adduced in support: Finally, the applicant alleges failure to fulfil the obligation to
state reasons, laid down by Article 253 EC, and also misuse of
The contested decision declared incompatible with the
common market State aid relating to urgent provisions in
favour of employment which was implemented by Italy by
means of Decree Law No 23 of 14 February 2003, converted
into the Law of 17 April 2003, requiring the Italian Govern-
ment to recover from the applicant the aid in question which it
is said to have received in connection with the sale of a branch
of the refrigeration business of Ocean Spa, situated in Verola- Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Viasat Broadcasting
nuova, Brescia. UK Ltd against the Commission of the European
In support of its claims, Brandt contests first of all the premise
of the Decision that Decree No 23/2003 conferred on the
purchasers an individual benefit, resulting in distortion of (Case T-329/04)
competition. In fact, the alleged benefits deriving from the
decree are, on the basis of the current legislation governing the
Earnings and Mobility Supplement Fund (legislation of a (2004/C 262/94)
general nature), generally available to any other company
which takes on workers from the lists of workers available for
transfer. Therefore, Decree 23/2003, although alleviating the (Language of the case: Danish)
position of workers who were transferred, does not grant any
economic benefit to the purchasers, namely Brandt in the
present case. Also, the applicant claims that the Commission
failed to undertake a complete and detailed evaluation of the
economic effects of the national measure, failing to take
account of the additional costs incurred by companies which An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
acquire businesses, they being obliged to take on burdens and nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
responsibilities (both social and financial) to which — in the European Communities on 2 August 2004 by Viasat Broad-
absence of the measure — they would not be subject. Finally, casting UK Ltd, West Drayton (Great Britain), represented by
the applicant refers to the general nature of the measure in Simon Evers Hjelmborg, lawyer.