|
25.7.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 270/36 |
Appeal brought on 8 June 2016 by Eurallumina SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II: Italian Republic and Eurallumina SpA v European Commission
(Case C-323/16 P)
(2016/C 270/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, A. Stratakis, L. Philippou, Solicitors)
Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the Judgment, |
|
— |
annul the Decision (1) in so far as it orders the Italian Republic to recover the aid, or failing that, |
|
— |
refer the case back to the general Court, |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant raises a single plea in law, divided into five parts, alleging infringement of Community law, in particular infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and failure to state reasons. The Appellant's specific pleas in law are as follows:
|
1. |
The General Court erred in law in interpreting the Judgment of 10 December 2013 so as to consider itself bound to find that publication of the opening of the proceedings on 2 February 2002 put an end to Eurallumina's legitimate expectations. |
|
2. |
In consequence of this error, the General Court failed to fulfil the very purpose of the referral back and failed to assess Eurallumina's arguments regarding the continuation of its legitimate expectations or assessed them in a distorted legal framework and erroneously. |
|
3. |
Even in the application of its distorted legal framework the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission's unreasonable delay in conducting the investigation was not capable of having given rise to legitimate expectations on the part of Eurallumina preventing recovery of the aid. |
|
4. |
The General Court misinterprets Directive 2003/96 (2) contra legem, in breach of Community law and its principles of interpretation. |
|
5. |
The General Court erred in law in rejecting Eurallumina's arguments based on its investments in the Sardinian plant. |
(1) 2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C(2005) 4436)
(2) Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity