ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
26 March 2014 (*)
(Action for annulment – State aid – Aid granted to banks during the crisis – Recapitalisation of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market – Expropriation of holders of subordinated bonds – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – No standing to bring proceedings – Manifestly inadmissible)
In Case T‑321/13,
Stefania Adorisio, residing in Rome (Italy), and the 363 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex, represented by F. Sciaudone, L. Dezzani, R. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani and D. Contini, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by L. Flynn and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1053 final of 22 February 2013 relating to State aid SA.35382 (2013/N) – Kingdom of the Netherlands – Rescue SNS Reaal 2013,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich, President, J. Schwarcz and V. Tomljenović (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 The applicants, Stefania Adorisio and 356 other natural persons and 8 legal persons, held, until January 2013, subordinated bonds issued by SNS Reaal NV (a bank) and its subsidiary SNS Bank NV (‘the subordinated bonds’).
2 On 1 February 2013, in order to stabilise the financial system in the Netherlands and having regard to the scale of SNS Reaal’s financial difficulties, the Kingdom of the Netherlands proceeded with the nationalisation of that bank (‘the nationalisation’) in accordance with the Netherlands Law of 28 September 2006 laying down rules for the financial markets and their supervision (Wet van 28 september 2006, houdende regels met betrekking tot de financiële markten en het toezicht daarop) (Staatsblad 2006, No 475), as amended. In that context, certain holders of securities issued by SNS Reaal and SNS Bank, including shareholders and holders of subordinated bonds, such as the applicants, were expropriated.
3 On the same date, the Kingdom of the Netherlands notified the European Commission of the measures taken in respect of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank. Those measures included a recapitalisation of EUR 1.9 billion in favour of SNS Bank and EUR 300 million in favour of SNS Reaal, and also a bridging loan of EUR 1.1 billion to SNS Reaal.
4 By letter of 19 February 2013, the applicants lodged a complaint with the Commission concerning the measures referred to in paragraph 3 above.
5 On 22 February 2013, at the end of the preliminary examination stage, the Commission adopted Decision C(2013) 1053 final of 22 February 2013 relating to State aid SA.35382 (13/N) – Kingdom of the Netherlands – Rescue SNS Reaal 2013 (‘the contested decision’). In that decision, the Commission classified as State aid the measures referred to in paragraph 3 above. However, it found that that aid was compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU.
Procedure and forms of order sought
6 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 June 2013, the applicants brought the present action.
7 The applicants claim that the Court should:
– annul the contested decision;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
8 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 2 July 2013, the applicant Banca Sammarinese di Investimento SpA informed the Court that it wished to discontinue the action. By order of partial removal made in Case T‑321/13 by the President of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court on 12 July 2013 (not published in the ECR), the name of that applicant was removed from the register of the Court.
9 The composition of the Chambers of the Court having been altered, the Judge-Rapporteur was attached to the Fifth Chamber (new composition), to which this case has therefore been assigned.
10 On 26 August 2013, by a separate document, the Commission raised a plea of inadmissibility in accordance with Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The applicants lodged their observations on that plea on 15 October 2013.
11 In its plea of inadmissibility, the Commission contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action as manifestly inadmissible;
– order the applicants to pay the costs.
12 In their observations on the plea of inadmissibility, the applicants submit that the Court should:
– dismiss the plea of inadmissibility;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
Law
13 Under Article 114(1) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, if a party so requests, the Court may decide on the plea of inadmissibility without going to the substance of the case. Under Article 114(3), the remainder of the proceedings is to be oral unless the Court otherwise decides.
14 The Court considers that, in this instance, it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file to dispense with the need to open the oral procedure.
15 The Commission contends that the action is inadmissible because, on the one hand, of the applicants’ lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings and, on the other, of their lack of standing to bring proceedings.
16 It should be noted at the outset that, in their observations on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission, the applicants rely on the fact that four of them brought the present action in their capacity not only as holders of subordinated bonds, as in the case of all the other applicants, but also as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid. In that context, the Court considers it appropriate to examine, first of all, the plea of inadmissibility alleging that the applicants have no legal interest in bringing proceedings in their capacity as holders of subordinated bonds, and subsequently the second plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicants have no standing in their capacity as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid.
First plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicants do not have a legal interest in bringing proceedings
17 The Commission submits that the applicants have no legal interest in bringing proceedings in the present case because they are unlikely to derive any benefit from the annulment of the contested decision. First of all, it is of the opinion that their action is motivated by an interest in annulling the decision to expropriate their subordinated bonds by means of the annulment of the contested decision. However, in so far as the contested decision does not pronounce on the expropriation, any annulment of that decision would not affect the expropriation. Moreover, even if the contested decision was annulled and the Commission subsequently adopted a decision declaring the aid incompatible (a ‘negative decision’) or a decision declaring the aid to be compatible subject to conditions (a ‘conditional decision’), that would not, in any event, require the Kingdom of the Netherlands to overturn the expropriation.
18 The applicants contest that plea of inadmissibility. First of all, they maintain, in essence, that if the contested decision is annulled and if the Commission adopts a negative decision or a conditional decision, that would bring an end to the nationalisation of SNS Reaal and its subsidiaries. Should the contested measures be declared incompatible with the internal market, SNS Reaal and SNS Bank would be insolvent, all attempts to find a private investor having previously failed. The applicants could then participate in the insolvency procedure and thus recover all or part of their credit.
19 Next, the applicants observe that, first, the circumstances of the case warrant assessing their legal interest in bringing proceedings ‘by taking into account also the facts of the case at the time the complaint was filed’, and that that interest still obtained on the date on which the contested decision was adopted. Secondly, they state that the Commission ‘validated’ the expropriation in the contested decision. According to the applicants, the Commission therefore took into consideration the legal and financial effects of the expropriation in order to assess the compatibility of the notified aid, despite the fact that the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands) did not rule on the lawfulness of the expropriation until 25 February 2013, that is, three days after the contested decision had been adopted.
20 In accordance with settled case-law, an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as the applicant has an interest in the annulment of the contested measure. That interest must be vested and present and is evaluated as at the date on which the action is brought; moreover, it must continue until the final decision (see Case T‑354/05 TF1 v Commission [2009] ECR II‑471, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited; order of 19 February 2013 in Joined Cases T‑15/12 and T‑16/12 Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 30).
21 In order for such an interest to be present, the annulment of the measure must of itself be capable of having legal consequences or, in other words, the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party who has brought it (see Case T‑310/00 MCI v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3253, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited, and order in Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission, paragraph 20 above, paragraph 31).
22 The Courts of the European Union may also examine, where appropriate, whether the Commission’s finding has binding legal effects such as to affect an applicant’s interests (see, to that effect, Case T‑212/00 Nuove Industrie Molisane v Commission [2002] ECR II‑347, paragraph 38; Case T‑136/05 Salvat père & fils and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II‑4063, paragraph 36; order in Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission, paragraph 20 above, paragraph 32).
23 In the present case, the Commission does not dispute that the applicants’ subordinated bonds issued by SNS Reaal and SNS Bank were expropriated in the context of the nationalisation. Moreover, as noted in paragraph 19 above, the applicants maintain, in essence, that their legal interest in bringing proceedings stems from the fact that the annulment of the contested decision would result in the insolvency of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank, which would enable them to participate in the insolvency procedure and obtain full or partial repayment of their subordinated bonds. The Court must examine in the light of this whether, as the applicants maintain, annulment of the contested decision would be liable to procure an advantage for them, within the meaning of the case-law set out in paragraphs 20 to 22 above.
24 First, it must be stated that the documents in the file do not permit the inference that, if the contested decision were to be annulled, that annulment would have any legal effect on the expropriation of the applicants.
25 On the one hand, it must be noted that, as is apparent from Article 107 TFEU, Commission decisions concerning measures notified to it in the field of State aid are intended only to declare whether or not the measures in question are compatible with the internal market. Thus, even if the Commission took into account in the contested decision, when assessing the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, the fact that the Kingdom of the Netherlands had carried out the expropriation, it could not ‘validate’ that expropriation, contrary to what the applicants claim.
26 On the other hand, the annulment of a decision declaring State aid compatible with the internal market entails, in accordance with Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), an obligation for the Member State to recover that aid from the beneficiary. In the present case, while any annulment of the contested decision would require the Kingdom of the Netherlands to recover the aid granted to SNS Reaal and SNS Bank that was declared compatible with the internal market in the contested decision, that annulment would still not result in the Kingdom of the Netherlands reversing its expropriation decision. In fact, the expropriation did not entail the grant of any public resources and cannot be covered by an obligation to recover State aid.
27 In that regard, it must be pointed out that annulment of the expropriation, where appropriate, could be obtained, judicially, only before the competent national courts. In effect, the applicants indicate in their written pleadings that they brought an action before the Raad van State to challenge the lawfulness of the expropriation, which was dismissed by the Raad van State by judgment of 25 February 2013.
28 Secondly, even on the assumption that, as the applicants maintain, the annulment of the contested decision would lead to the insolvency of SNS Reaal and of SNS Bank, the applicants have not established that such annulment would procure an advantage for them.
29 Indeed, the applicants have not put forward any argument or evidence to prove that, in so far as their rights in the subordinated bonds were expropriated, they could, in the event that the contested decision were annulled, be parties to any insolvency procedure relating to SNS Reaal and SNS Bank.
30 It must therefore be held that any annulment of the contested decision would not be liable in any event to procure any advantage for the applicants.
31 The arguments raised by the applicants in this regard do not invalidate that conclusion.
32 First of all, the Court cannot accept the applicants’ argument that the annulment of the contested decision would result in the adoption of a negative decision which ‘would put an end’ to the nationalisation of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank. That argument is based on the false premiss that the nationalisation is still in progress. Yet it is common ground that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided simultaneously on 1 February 2013 to nationalise SNS Reaal and SNS Bank and to expropriate all their securities and assets, including the subordinated bonds which the applicants held until January 2013.
33 Next, the applicants’ argument that, in essence, the expropriation enabled the amount of the aid granted to SNS Reaal and SNS Bank to be kept to a minimum, and that the Commission took that factor into consideration in its examination of the compatibility of the notified aid, is ineffective. That argument cannot invalidate the conclusion, in paragraphs 25 to 30 above, that annulment of the contested decision would not, in any event, be likely to have an impact on the expropriation or to lead the Kingdom of the Netherlands to reverse the expropriation.
34 Lastly, in so far as the applicants submit that the circumstances of the case warrant their legal interest in bringing proceedings being assessed ‘by taking into account also the facts of the case at the time the complaint was filed’ and that that interest still obtained on the date on which the contested decision was adopted, that argument is unfounded. It must be borne in mind that, according to the settled case-law referred to in paragraph 20 above, the Court is required to evaluate the legal interest in bringing proceedings as at the date on which the action is brought. In any event, the circumstances of the case put forward by the applicants – that is to say, that the Commission took into account, in assessing in the contested decision the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, the fact that the Kingdom of the Netherlands had carried out the expropriation – do not invalidate the finding that the annulment of that decision would not procure any advantage for them for the reasons set out in paragraphs 25 to 30 above.
35 In those circumstances, the first plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicants do not have a legal interest in bringing proceedings, must be upheld. Since the applicants claim that four of them have a legal interest in bringing proceedings not only as former holders of subordinated bonds but also as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid, it is appropriate to analyse the second plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicants do not have standing to bring proceedings as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid.
Second plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicants do not have standing to bring proceedings as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid
36 The Commission maintains, in essence, that the applicants do not have standing to bring proceedings in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU since they have neither proved, nor even alleged, that they were competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid and that, as a result, they had an ‘interest which Article 108 TFEU is designed to protect’.
37 The applicants object to the second plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission. They assert that they have standing to bring proceedings in so far as four of them, namely Generali Pan Europe Ltd, Alpha Value Management Italy Ltd, Banca di San Marino SpA and Finaroche SCA, are competitors of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank. They state that Generali Pan Europe has a subsidiary in the Netherlands and that it is therefore in a distinct competitive position vis-à-vis SNS Reaal and SNS Bank. Moreover, they note that the Commission itself stated in recital 51 in the preamble to the contested decision that the beneficiaries of the aid had some international activities and were competing with foreign undertakings on the Netherlands market.
38 Under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.
39 It is settled case-law that persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU only if that decision affects them by virtue of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed (see, to that effect, Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at 107; Case C‑198/91 Cook v Commission [1993] ECR I‑2487, paragraph 20; and Case C‑225/91 Matra v Commission [1993] ECR I‑3203, paragraph 14). That applies in particular where the applicant’s market position would be substantially affected by the aid to which the decision at issue relates (see, to that effect, Case C‑487/06 P British Aggregates v Commission [2008] ECR I‑10515, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
40 Furthermore, where the Commission adopts a decision finding aid compatible with the internal market, without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, interested parties have standing to bring an action that seeks merely to safeguard the procedural rights available to them under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (see, to that effect, British Aggregates v Commission, paragraph 39 above, paragraph 28). In accordance with Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999, interested parties include, in particular, undertakings competing with the beneficiaries of the aid.
41 In the light of the provisions of the Treaty and the case-law set out in paragraphs 38 to 40 above, it is appropriate to examine in this instance whether, as the Commission essentially maintains, it has not been established, as a matter of fact or with sufficient certainty, that Alpha Value Management Italy, Generali Pan Europe, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche were effectively in competition with the beneficiaries of the aid. Indeed, if there was no such competitive relationship, those companies could not be regarded as having standing to bring proceedings, either as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid, whose market position has been substantially affected as referred to in the case-law cited in paragraph 39 above, or as interested parties within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999, mentioned in paragraph 40 above.
42 In the first place, as regards the economic activities of the beneficiaries of the aid, the applicants merely refer to recitals 11 to 13 in the preamble to Commission Decision C(2010) 498 final of 28 January 2010 relating to State aid N 371/2009 – Kingdom of the Netherlands – Viability plan SNS Reaal (OJ 2010 C 93 p. 2), to which the Commission refers, moreover, in footnote 2 to the contested decision, in order to define the activities of SNS Reaal and of SNS Bank. It should be noted that those decisions indicate that SNS Reaal is engaged, through its subsidiary SNS Bank in particular, in various activities in the banking sectors, including mortgage credit, savings and insurance.
43 In the second place, as regards the economic activities of Alpha Value Management Italy, Generali Pan Europe, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche, the applicants identify those four companies, from among the eight legal persons who brought the present action, as being competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid.
44 In that regard it must be noted, first, that the applicants relied in the application only on their status as holders of subordinated bonds, not on any status as competitors. Secondly, and in any event, in so far as the applicants rely on the fact that Alpha Value Management Italy, Generali Pan Europe, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche are competitors of SNS Bank and SNS Reaal, it must be noted that they merely declare that the objects of Alpha Value Management Italy, Generali Pan Europe, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche, as described in those companies’ statutes – in the case where these were submitted by the applicants – list certain services offered by SNS Reaal and SNS Bank. However, they do not provide any evidence that would enable the Court to verify, not only whether Alpha Value Management Italy, Generali Pan Europe, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche carry on all the activities on the market as set out in their company objects, but above all whether there is effectively a competitive relationship with SNS Reaal and SNS Bank in respect of those activities, and therefore that Alpha Value Management Italy, Generali Pan Europe, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche were affected, substantially or otherwise, or can be regarded, with a sufficient degree of certainty, as liable to be affected by the grant of the measures referred to in paragraph 3 above.
45 Indeed, as regards Alpha Value Management Italy, Banca di San Marino and Finaroche, it must be noted that, while it is apparent from the statutes of those companies that their objects authorise them to carry out certain financial activities corresponding to those of SNS Bank, such as, for example, granting loans, the applicants do not put forward any facts that would enable the Court to satisfy itself, with sufficient certainty, that those companies carry out, or are liable to carry out, activities that do indeed compete with those of the beneficiaries of the aid, and therefore that the grant of the aid in question affects them in some way. The applicants’ assertion that, as is apparent from recital 51 to the contested decision, the services in question are cross-border services and the beneficiaries of the aid compete with foreign operators both within and outside the territory of the Netherlands, cannot invalidate that finding. Not only does that assertion fail to demonstrate that those undertakings actually operate in the same geographical markets, but it fails, in any event, to establish that Finaroche, Alpha Value Management Italy and Banca di San Marino provide similar services to the same customers and therefore that they are indeed in competition with SNS Bank and SNS Reaal.
46 As regards Generali Pan Europe, which the applicants indicate has a subsidiary in the Netherlands, it must be noted that the applicants have not provided any documents revealing its company objects or any evidence that would enable the Court to ascertain that there is in indeed a competitive relationship, whether proven or sufficiently certain, that would link Generali Pan Europe to the beneficiaries of the disputed aid.
47 It follows from the foregoing findings that the applicants have failed to prove that Generali Pan Europe, Alpha Value Management Italy, Finaroche and Banca di San Marino are indeed in competition with the beneficiaries of the disputed aid, and therefore that they have standing, on that basis, in the context of the present action.
48 Consequently, the second plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicants have no standing to bring proceedings as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid, must be upheld.
49 In those circumstances, the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, in so far as the applicants have not established either their legal interest in bringing proceedings or their standing to bring proceedings.
Costs
50 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission, in addition to bearing their own, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. Ms Stefania Adorisio and the 363 other applicants listed in the Annex hereto shall pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 26 March 2014.
ANNEX
Giuseppina Bonomo, residing in Latina (Italy),
Alessandro Almanza, residing in Latina,
Alberto Alpi, residing in Borgo Tossignano (Italy),
Tiziana Marcelli, residing in Rome (Italy),
Francesca Amicuzi, residing in Rome,
Mario Marcelli, residing in Rome,
Alessandro Antei, residing in Rome,
Daniela Giusti, residing in Rome,
Marco Anzani, residing in Chiuro (Italy),
Aria Giorgio, residing in Turin (Italy),
Claudia Mattiotto, residing in Druento (Italy),
Francesco Armano, residing in San Salvatore Monferrato (Italy),
Mauro Arnoldi, residing in Mozzo (Italy),
Maurizio Arosio, residing in Desio (Italy),
Alberto Azzoni, residing in Lecco (Italy),
Sergio Baldi, residing in Prato (Italy),
Fabio Edoardo Balduzzi, residing in Turin,
Vincenzo Barba, residing in Rome,
Giorgio Barbieri, residing in Castelfranco Emilia (Italy),
Tiziana Barcella, residing in Orio al Serio (Italy),
Piero Basso, residing in Borgio Verezzi (Italy),
Fabio Battini, residing in Carpi (Italy),
Francesco Bazzani, residing in Sanguinetto (Italy),
Giovanni Bazzani, residing in Gazzo Veronese (Italy),
Natalina De Fanti Eda, residing in Sanguinetto (Italy),
Anna Maria Bestetti, residing in Buccinasco (Italy),
Serafino Gibertini, residing in Buccinasco,
Mirella Bocchi, residing in Cremona (Italy),
Alessandro Nolli, residing in Cremona,
Tulle Benaglia, residing in Calestano (Italy),
Giuseppe Bernagozzi, residing in Cento (Italy),
Francesco Bertinato, residing in Bologna (Italy),
Federico Giulio Angelo Bertolini, residing in Milan (Italy),
Raffaella Biancaniello, residing in Seregno (Italy),
Anthony Gad Bigio, residing in Bethesda, Maryland (United States),
Tommaso Bissoli, residing in Verona (Italy),
Ciro Borrelli, residing in Naples (Italy),
Maria Rosaria Pezzano, residing in Naples,
Riccardo Borioli, residing in Milan,
Marzia Brambilla, residing in Agrate Brianza (Italy),
Fausta Brighenti, residing in Modena (Italy),
Claudio Borghi, residing in Milan,
Sandro Boscolo Bragadin, residing in Chioggia (Italy),
Giuseppe Ricciarelli, residing in San Giustino (Italy),
Carla Braganti, residing in San Giustino,
Piermauro Broletti, residing in Bergamo (Italy),
Roberto Brunello, residing in Piverone (Italy),
Boicio Lavor Boiceff, residing in Terni (Italy),
Mario Bosio, residing in Bergamo,
Fernando Calfa, residing in Turin,
Vittorio Calfa, residing in Turin,
Maria Grazia Rocchi, residing in Turin,
Agostino Califano, residing in Roccapiemonte (Italy),
Carmela Califano, residing in Roccapiemonte,
Antonio Canestro, residing in Pully (Switzerland),
Flavio Angelo Cantù, residing in Milan,
Luca Cappelletti, residing in Forli (Italy),
Alessandro Riggi, residing in Nettuno (Italy),
Fabio Rossi, residing in Borgo Carso (Italy),
Alessandra Carchella, residing in Grottaferrata (Italy),
Alfonso Carpi, residing in Rome,
Luciana Carrara, residing in Bergamo,
Giuseppe Cataldo, residing in Rome,
Silvia Cattaneo, residing in Mozzo,
Stefano Cattani, residing in Parma (Italy),
Sabrina Ferrari, residing in Parma,
Dario Capillupo, residing in Pedrengo (Italy),
Davide Celli, residing in Rimini (Italy),
Luisa Gaviraghi, residing in Agrate Brianza,
Paolo Ceruti, residing in Agrate Brianza,
Edoardo Mario Ciotti, residing in Bologna,
Elena Ciotti, residing in Turin,
Agnese Silvia Cattori, residing in Turin,
Antonio Vedovato, residing in Bergamo,
Carlo Chiapponi, residing in Borgonovo Val Tidone (Italy),
Remo Mariani, residing in Granarolo dell’Emilia (Italy),
Stefano Crispo, residing in Somma Lombardo (Italy),
Silvano Paolo Cabiati, residing in Biassono (Italy),
Luciana Colombo, residing in Biassono,
Alberto Cognigni, residing in Porto Sant’Elpidio (Italy),
Andrea Conz, residing in Castelfranco Veneto (Italy),
Silvano Corazzin, residing in Mosnigo di Moriago (Italy),
Donata Tonetto, residing in Mosnigo di Moriago,
Gerardo Cornetta, residing in Salerno (Italy),
Vegliante Gerarda, residing in Salerno,
Davide Dall’Agata, residing in Forli,
Maria Serena D’Angelo, residing in Rome,
Carlo Crocella, residing in Rome,
Stefano D’Andrea, residing in Ancona (Italy),
Paolo Vincenzo Dell’Orto, residing in Vimercate (Italy),
Michela Simonini, residing in Vimercate,
Enrico Detoma, residing in Biella (Italy),
Luca Dezzani, residing in Milan,
Silvia Medici, residing in Milan,
Piero Di Marco, residing in Pennapiedimonte (Italy),
Bruno Dominici, residing in Spoleto (Italy),
Francesco Doneddu, residing in Sassari (Italy),
Cristina Mozzambani, residing in Buttapietra (Italy),
Barbara Mozzambani, residing in San Martino Buon Albergo (Italy),
Raffaele Duino, residing in San Martino Buon Albergo,
Anna Ianniello, residing in Afragola (Italy),
Vincenzo Fabbio, residing in Naples,
Enrico Fabbro, residing in Buja (Italy),
Marco Falconi, residing in Acqualagna (Italy),
Mirella Fassi, residing in Albino (Italy),
Francesco Villari, residing in Albino,
Dario Farina, residing in Bologna,
Iana Orsini Stagioni, residing in Bologna,
Luca Franceschelli, residing in Imola (Italy),
Luigi Felici, residing in Rome,
Petro Feliciotti, residing in Porto Recanati (Italy),
Giampietro Ferreli, residing in Rome,
Giuliana Verrocchio, residing in Rome,
Carlo Filomena, residing in Martina Franca (Italy),
Ortensia Florio, residing in Rome,
Daniela Gazzaniga, residing in Rome,
Davide Fontana, residing in Bologna,
Daniela Fontana, residing in Milan,
Francesco Rossi, residing in Milan,
Bartolomeo Forzano, residing in Mondovi (Italy),
Patrizia Cerri, residing in Mondovi,
Mario Fucci, residing in Sulmona (Italy),
Stefano Galassi, residing in Rome,
Giuliana Martarello, residing in Rome,
Michela Gallazzi, residing in Olgiate Olona (Italy),
Davide Galli, residing in Agrate Brianza,
Gianfranco Gamba, residing in Gazzaniga (Italy),
Maria Pezzoli, residing in Gazzaniga,
Giada Gasperini, residing in Rome,
Maria Grazia Gasperini, residing in Rome,
Giovanni Canfora, residing in Rome,
Maria Canfora, residing in Civita Castellana (Italy),
Felicita Cecconi, residing in Rome,
Maurizio Castagna, residing in Rome,
Luigi Gatti, residing in Seregno,
Alberto Gelati, residing in Milan,
Pierluigi Gentilin, residing in Biella,
Paolo Gentilin, residing in Sandigliano (Italy),
Artemio Gentilin, residing in Sandigliano,
Stefano Gentilini, residing in Castel Bolognese (Italy),
Silvia Gigli, residing in Ancona,
Fausto Giorgetti, residing in Montemurlo (Italy),
Mila Mannelli, residing in Montemurlo,
Marco Giunta, residing in Bassano del Grappa (Italy),
Diana Giuliani, residing in Rome,
Pietro Lelio Giuliani, residing in Civita Castellana,
Iracema Costantini, residing in Civita Castellana,
Paola Giuliani, residing in Rome,
Giovanni Guerzoni, residing in Rome,
Gianluigi Gelmi, residing in Cazzano Sant’Andrea (Italy),
Ornella Gelmi, residing in Gandino (Italy),
Loris Gheller, residing in Bolzano Vicentino (Italy),
Alessandro Germini, residing in Rome,
Gian Marco Gbibaudo, residing in Borgo San Dalmazzo (Italy),
Caterina Rabbia, residing in Borgo San Dalmazzo,
Sergio Gollini, residing in Casalecchio di Reno (Italy),
Roberto Gonzaga, residing in Milan,
Marco Gottifredi, residing in Dervio (Italy),
Antonio Bambino Guadalupi, residing in Giugliano (Italy),
Daniela Giuffredi, residing in Parma,
Gianna Guidoboni, residing in Bergamo,
Fernando Morelli, residing in Bergamo,
Luisella Carrara, residing in Lover (Italy),
Roberto Carrara, residing in Bergamo,
Maria Guarneri, residing in Rome,
Silvana Bosio, residing in Gazzaniga (Italy),
Luigi Meni, residing in Gazzaniga,
Clemente Ciaceri, residing in Scansano (Italy),
Fabrizio Rocchi, residing in Zanica (Italy),
Ugo Franzoni, residing in Palosco (Italy),
Gianluca Guiso, residing in Oliena (Italy),
Karel Rosa, residing in Biella,
Gustavo Otto Alfredo Klaebisch, residing in Pescara (Italy),
Fabrizio Marco Kofler, residing in Milan,
Ioan Dumitru, residing in Vaprio d’Adda (Italy),
Eliana Iodice, residing in Palermo (Italy),
Antonino Bertolino, residing in Palermo,
Angelo Laudiero, residing in Afragola,
Marco Leone, residing in Rome,
Antonella Salvatori, residing in Rome,
Sergio Leoni, residing in Bernareggio (Italy),
Amerigo Lori, residing in Poggibonsi (Italy),
Samantha Losco, residing in Avellino (Italy),
Renato Maini, residing in Viserbella (Italy),
Fedelina Mordini, residing in Modena,
Anna Reni, residing in Viserbella,
Gianluca Marangoni, residing in Verona,
Aldo Maggi, residing in Albino,
Attilio Malatesta, residing in Squinzano (Italy),
Francesco Malandrino, residing in Turin,
Carmelina Maria Manduca, residing in Guidonia Montecelio (Italy),
Claudio Manfrin, residing in Santhia (Italy),
Mariarosa Baruzzi, residing in Biella,
Vittorio Manfrin, residing in Biella,
Dalila Suardi, residing in Nembro (Italy),
Eliseo Macconi, residing in Bergamo,
Paolo Mangili, residing in Nembro,
Maurizio Mambretti, residing in Valbrona (Italy),
Enzo Lazzaro Mapelli, residing in Brembate (Italy),
Franco Mapelli, residing in Grezzago (Italy),
Adriana Mapelli, residing in Grezzago,
Giuseppe Marchetti, residing in Rome,
Ermelinda Frambati, residing in Granarolo dell’Emilia,
Maria Assunta Marzotti, residing in Rome,
Angelo Martinelli, residing in Modena,
Paolo Umberto Martinelli, residing in Modena,
Claudio Giovanni Martinelli, residing in Modena,
Stefano Massai, residing in Campi Bisenzio (Italy),
Simonetta Mazzoni, residing in Casalecchio di Reno,
Roberta Mazzoni, residing in Bologna,
Oscar Mazzoleni Ferracini, residing in Bergamo,
Alessandro Medolago, residing in Bergamo,
Giorgio Mele, residing in Caserta (Italy),
Francesco Meli, residing in Monasterolo del Castello (Italy),
Marcello Russo, residing in Rome,
Maria Teresa Messina, residing in Rome,
Matteo Miari, residing in Sassuolo (Italy),
Pietro Minni, residing in Rome,
Danilo Molducci, residing in Campiano (Italy),
Stefano Molducci, residing in Castrocaro Terme e Terra del Sole (Italy),
Giovanni Molino, residing in Mareno di Piave (Italy),
Alberto Mondini, residing in Costermano (Italy),
Daniele Monteleone, residing in Palermo,
Ornella Monti, residing in Seregno (Italy),
Daria Moscardi, residing in Rome,
Fabrizio Sartori, residing in Rome,
Lorena Sartori, residing in Rome,
Anna Lucia Muscaridola, residing in Matera (Italy),
Raffaele Nappo, residing in Castellammare di Stabia (Italy),
Marco Nava, residing in Milan,
Giuliano Nazzarro, residing in Rome,
Andrea Neri, residing in Montevarchi (Italy),
Massimo Neri, residing in Florence (Italy),
Carla Nodari, residing in Leffe (Italy),
Franscesco Paciucci, residing in Rome,
Wilhelmina Christina Blokker, residing in Rome,
Dino Pangrazzi, residing in Trento (Italy),
Massimiliano Parini, residing in Corbetta (Italy),
Paula Villalba Fabiano, residing in Latina,
Patrizio Passalacqua, residing in Lugo (Italy),
Germano Passerini, residing in Sassoferrato (Italy),
Daniela Prando, residing in Padua (Italy),
Renato Casarotto, residing in Padua,
Massimiliano Pecar, residing in Trieste (Italy),
Marco Pecetto, residing in Turin,
Emanuela Susa, residing in Turin,
Giuseppe Petrina, residing in Florence,
Carmela Dell’Acqua, residing in Florence,
Susanna Picinali, residing in Albino (Italy),
Stefano Villa, residing in Albino,
Manuele Pianca, residing in Alassio (Italy),
Gianmarco Piazza, residing in Faenza (Italy),
Francesca Nasalvi, residing in Faenza,
Enrico Roberto Polese, residing in Turin,
Maria Borgogno, residing in Turin,
Antonio Porfirio, residing in Rome,
Alessandro Cataldo, residing in Rome,
Patrizia Popolato, residing in Rome,
Franscesco Pozzessere, residing in Panama City (Panama),
Jacopo Villatico Campbell, residing in Panama City,
Giuliana Maccali, residing in Monza (Italy),
Bruno Pozzi, residing in Monza,
Carla Maria Quatra, residing in Milan,
Giuseppe Querci, residing in Campi Bisenzio (Italy),
Onelia Pecchioli, residing in Campi Bisenzio,
Luca Radicchi, residing in Gubbio (Italy),
Maria Pia Raffaelli, residing in Bergamo,
Patrizia Rapanà, residing in Rome,
Antonella Raso, residing in Fondi (Italy),
Bruno Renzi, residing in Rome,
Maria Luisa Decisi, residing in Rome,
Aldina Rizzardi, residing in Seregno,
Alessandro Roca, residing in Turin,
Francesco Rocco, residing in Afragola,
Rosa Riccioli, residing in Milan,
Sergio Rossi, residing in Fabrica di Roma (Italy),
Luca Rimoldi, residing in Busto Arsizio (Italy),
Luigi Romenti, residing in San Nicolo a Trebbia (Italy),
Marina Meregalli, residing in Usmate Velate (Italy),
Carmelo Rossi, residing in Usmate Velate,
Armanda Ruggeri, residing in Bergamo,
Francesco Sabaro, residing in Barcelona (Spain),
Fabio Saccomandi, residing in Turin,
Zaccaria Sala, residing in Nembro,
Mario Sala, residing in Nembro,
Laura Mazzoleni Ferracini, residing in Nembro,
Nicola Sala, residing in Nembro,
Vito Salvatore, residing in Vitulazio (Italy),
Antonio Scalzullo, residing in Avellino,
Rosaria Andaloro, residing in Milazzo (Italy),
Francesco Spadaro, residing in Messina (Italy),
Antonio Schiavone, residing in Cazzano Sant’Andrea,
Colomba Rottigni, residing in Cazzano Sant’Andrea,
Ezio Schiavone, residing in Cazzano Sant’Andrea,
Claudia Bardi, residing in Sienna (Italy),
Franco Stanghellini, residing in Sienna,
Alberto Segre, residing in Biella,
Paola Segre, residing in Biella,
Gianfranco Segre, residing in Biella,
Antonino Segreto, residing in Palermo,
Angela Pirrera, residing in Palermo,
Marco Seregni, residing in Milan,
Adriana Stefanoni, residing in Villa d’Almè (Italy),
Alberto Kluzer, residing in Villa d’Almè,
Tiziana Stoppani, residing in Como (Italy),
Stefano Soncini, residing in Rome,
Vincenzo Tallarico, residing in Rome,
Gian Paolo Talpone, residing in Zoagli (Italy),
Maria Pepice, residing in Sirtori (Italy),
Alberto Tarantini, residing in Rome,
Fabio Tavazzi, residing in Padua,
Fernando Tavazzi, residing in Padua,
Paola Poletto, residing in Padua,
Alberto Terraneo, residing in Carate Brianza (Italy),
Francesco Terenziani, residing in Parma,
Edda Magnani, residing in Parma,
Ada Zanichelli, residing in Parma,
Paolo Terenziani, residing in Parma,
Camillo Terruzzi, residing in Briosco (Italy),
Nadir Gualberto Terruzzi, residing in Briosco,
Karen Terruzzi, residing in Briosco,
Valentina Terruzzi, residing in Verano Brianza (Italy),
Maristella Brodesco, residing in Quinto Vincentino (Italy),
Nicola Todescato, residing in Quinto Vincentino,
Fabio Torri, residing in Formigine (Italy),
Roberto Toschi Corneliani, residing in Agrate Brianza,
Michele Tosi, residing in Ferrara (Italy),
Federica Trentini, residing in Modena,
Mauro F. Allievi, residing in Modena,
Mario Tredici, residing in Rome,
Aldo Tredici, residing in Fara in Sabina (Italy),
Anna Lupi, residing in Fara in Sabina,
Adriana Tredici, residing in Fara in Sabina,
Carla Tredici, residing in Rome,
Sorace Roberta, residing in Rome,
Franca Longhi, residing in Rome,
Mario Troise, residing in Nepi (Italy),
Mario Argentieri, residing in Rome,
Andrea Turci, residing in Arona (Italy),
Riccardo Ubicini, residing in Faggeto Lario (Italy),
Dario Valente, residing in Bacoli (Italy),
Franscesca Romana Valle, residing in Rome,
Andrea Vallone, residing in Nettuno (Italy),
Umberto Valsecchi, residing in Olginate (Italy),
Mimma Caruso, residing in Naples,
Donato Leonardo Ventimiglia, residing in Naples,
Emilio Vergnani, residing in Bagnolo in Piano (Italy),
Gianluca Vigolo, residing in Rubano (Italy),
Elena Villari, residing in Albino,
Antonio Villari, residing in Albino,
Luigi Visinoni, residing in Orio al Serio,
Andrea Vocella, residing in Portogruaro (Italy),
Franca Romana Zappieri, residing in Milan,
Jacopo Zodo, residing in Treviso (Italy),
Maria Giovanna Malvestio, residing in Treviso,
Valerio Zoja, residing in Milan,
Finmoda Srl, established in Turin,
Alpha Value Management Italy Ltd, established in Noventa Padovana (Italy),
Generali Pan Europe Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland),
Banca di San Marino SpA, established in Faetano (San Marino),
Finaroche SCA, established in Rochefort (Belgium),
FE.DE. Immobilservices Srl, established in Rome,
Zarocat SpA, established in Arcugnano (Italy)