7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/24

(Case C-68/14)

2014/C 102/33

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Equitalia Nord SpA

Defendant: CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. SNC

Questions referred

1.Are the Italian rules in force laid down in Article 3(1) and (4) of Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 2012, as amended in part by converting Law No 135 of 7 August 2012, according to which ‘given the exceptional nature of the economic situation and bearing in mind the priority need to achieve the objectives of controlling public expenditure, as from the date on which this measure enters into force, for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, the updating relating to the variation in the indices of the National Statistics Institute (ISTAT), as provided for under the law in force, shall not apply to the rent payable by the administrations included in the consolidated balance sheet of the public authorities, as determined by ISTAT in accordance with Article 1(3) of Law No 196 of 31 December 2009, or by the independent regulatory authorities, including the Commissione nazionale per le società e la borsa (National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange — Consob) for the use as lessee of premises for institutional purposes’, and, in addition, at paragraph 4, that ‘for the purposes of controlling public expenditure, [Or. 6] in the case of leases for the use of premises for institutional purposes concluded by the central authorities, as determined by ISTAT in accordance with Article 1(3) of Law No 196 of 31 December 2009, and by the independent regulatory authorities, including the Commissione nazionale per le società e la borsa (Consob), the rental payments shall be reduced by 15% of the current rent as from 1 January 2015’, and, ‘as from the date of entry into force of the law converting this decree, the reduction referred to in the previous sentence shall in any event apply to leases which expired or were renewed after that date’, incompatible with the provisions of Article 106(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that they are capable of guaranteeing entities operating in a competitive market an unjustified, discriminatory advantage compared with other entities that operate in the same field but do not benefit from those rules?

2.Can those rules be regarded as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of and for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that they are capable of guaranteeing entities operating in a competitive market an unjustified and discriminatory advantage compared with other entities that operate in the same field but do not benefit from those same rules?