Appeal brought on 20 April 2016 by Simet SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2016 in Case T-15/14 Simet v Commission
(Case C-232/16 P)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Simet SpA (represented by: C. Clarizia, C. Varrone, P. Clarizia, 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 (Case T-15/14), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/201/EU of 2 October 2013 on compensation to be paid to SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 (state aid measure SA.33037 (2012/C) — Italy) and annul that decision;
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes:
Article 107 TFEU, in so far as it held that the compensation payments to SIMET granted by virtue of a ruling of the Italian Consiglio di Stato and notified by the national authorities constituted State aid, while the dispute decided by the national court concerned compensation for damage suffered by the appellant on account of unlawful aspects of acts of the Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) in connection with the provision of inter-regional road transport public service during the period between 1987 and 2003;
Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, 1 in so far as the General Court failed to acknowledge that the relevant Italian legislation did not comply with that regulation on two grounds: (1) it required an individual to carry out his economic activity as a public service only, while, in accordance with Regulation No 1191/69, that manner of performing an undertaking’s activity is prohibited in so far as public service requires a concession-holder to comply with public service obligations; (2) it did not provide for compensation for service obligations performed by the undertaking; following the changes introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91, 2 Simet could no longer be subject to any public service obligation since it was an inter-regional bus passenger transport undertaking;
Regulation No 1191/69, in particular in so far as the General Court erred in considering that the Commission's decision that payments to Simet constituted State Aid was lawful because, since the company had not used separate accounts for costs incurred in respect of that activity, there was a risk of overcompensation. Contrary to the view of the General Court, Article 5 et seq. of the regulation laid down a different method of determining compensatory measures based on the 'effects' that the imposition of such public service obligations might have on the loss of competitiveness of the undertaking as a whole;
the principles concerning compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringement of EU law, principles according to which if an authority of a Member State adopts an administrative measure within its competence which is contrary to EU law, that authority is required to pay damages to the addressee of that measure, on account of the fact that it is unlawful.
____________1 Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition, 1969, p. 276).
2 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1).