Action brought on 16 February 2006 - Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-60/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant): Italian Republic (represented by: Giacomo Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C (2005) 4436 final of 7 December 2005 and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant brings the present action against Commission Decision C (2005) 4436 final of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from the tax on mineral oils used as fuel for the production of alumina in the region of Gardanne, the region of Shannon and in Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively.

With regard to the applicant, that decision stated that:

_    The exemptions in question were not intended to apply generally and without distinction to all those to whom it was addressed, but were designed to support certain undertakings on account of the special structure of the alumina market.

_    The aid in question was new and unlawful since notification of it was not given in due time and it was to be regarded as partially existing until 29 May 1998.

_    Up to 31 October 2003 that aid was incompatible with State aid rules on the protection of the environment.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

_    The tax exemption provided for by Italian legislation was not selective but was directed at all businesses using mineral oil for the production of aluminium oxide. The fact that there is only one plant in Italy at which such oil is used in the production cycle is simply a matter of fact which is not capable of altering the fact, which is not disputed, that the provision is of general scope.

_    The aid in question should have been regarded as existing aid in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 since the Italian State was duly authorised by the Council to keep the exemption that is the subject of the dispute in force.

_    The exemption in question was closely linked with the attainment of environmental protection objectives, as may be inferred from the legislation implemented by the Italian Government and from the agreements concluded by Eurallumina with the region of Sardinia and the Ministero dell'Ambiente (Environment Ministry).

_    The exemption should have been regarded as necessary for the economic development of the region of Sardinia.

_    In the opinion of the Italian Government, once Directive 2003/96/EC entered into force, there was no longer any obligation to give notification of the tax benefit in question as Article 18 in conjunction with Annex II of that directive expressly provided that the disputed tax should remain in force and unaffected until 31 December 2006. Moreover, the content of those provisions is analogous to that of Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2001/224/EC.

Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the presumption of the legality of Community provisions.

    

____________