Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/20

—

(Case C-448/10 P)

()

2010/C 317/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Barone and A. Marega, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal (1) and annul the contested decision (2) in so far as they declare that the disputed measure is not compensatory in nature, and hold it, on the contrary, to be unlawful and incompatible State aid; and/or

—set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declares that the recovery order contained in the contested decision is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, accordingly, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders Italy to proceed without delay with the recovery of the aid and interest; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed and must therefore be set aside on the following grounds:

1.infringement of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, and contradictory reasoning and manifest error as a result of the distortion of the evidence provided in relation to the interpretation of the disputed measure as State aid and not as a compensatory measure in favour of the appellant. The General Court erred in interpreting restrictively the rules and the national case-law relied on at first instance by the appellant, which demonstrate that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid but a continuation of the compensation strategy originally provided for by the Italian legislature in 1962 and acknowledged by the Commission and the General Court;

2.infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (3) and contradictory and insufficient reasoning, in that the General Court found that the recovery order contained in the contested decision is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The judgment of the General Court is flawed and inadequately reasoned in so far as it found that the Commission’s lengthy silence vis-à-vis the clarifications provided by the Italian authorities at the end of 1991 — concerning the fact that the first temporal extension of the Terni tariff was a continuation of the original compensation strategy — is not a sufficient basis for the creation of a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant that the temporal extensions of the Terni tariff, including the disputed measure, do not constitute State aid.

—

(1) Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08.

(2) Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

—