Action brought on 23 December 2008 - Eridania Sadam v Commission

(Case T-579/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eridania Sadam SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, lawyer, I. Perego, lawyer, B. Amabile, lawyer, and M. Serpone, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested Decision;

require by way of measure of inquiry, in accordance with Articles 65 and 66 of the Rules of Procedure, the production before the Court of the documents in the Commission's case-file;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Eridania Sadam SpA contests, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in State aid case No. C 29/2004 (ex N 328/2003).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, respectively alleging:

misapplication of Article 87(1) EC to the facts and, in any event, erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to state sufficient reasons, in so far as the Commission found that the financial aid scheme duly notified by the Italian authorities was likely, if implemented, to affect trade between Member States and to distort competition;

infringement of Article 87(2)(b) EC and of the guidelines applicable to State aid in the agricultural sector, and breach of the Commission's own working practice - and, in any case, erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to state sufficient reasons - in so far as the Commission found that the financial aid scheme duly notified by the Italian authorities could not be treated as an exception under Article 87(2)(b) EC;

infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC - and, in any case, erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to state sufficient reasons - in so far as the Commission found that the financial aid scheme duly notified by the Italian authorities could not be treated as an exception under Article 87(3)(c) EC;

breach of the principles of sound administration and diligence and of the duty of care, by reason inter alia of the excessive length of the administrative procedure.

____________