Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 —
Eurallumina v Commission

(Case T‑308/11)

State aid — Electricity — Preferential rate — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — New aid

1.                     Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid — Judicial review (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 32, 43-45, 48, 50, 51)

2.                     Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 33, 36)

3.                     State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 108 TFEU — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — None save in exceptional circumstances (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 108 TFEU) (see paras 58-62)

4.                     State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 66-71)

5.                     State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 72-80)

6.                     State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid benefiting from the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) TFEU — Operating aid — Not included (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU; Commission Notice 98/C 74/06) (see paras 84-86)

7.                     EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Duty of diligence — Administrative procedure (see para. 100)

Re:

By way of principal claim, application for annulment, in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the latter in so far as an order is made for restitution of the aid granted to the applicant and, in the further alternative, application for annulment of Article 3 of that same decision, again in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs.