75Finally, the Commission contends that CDA is wrong when it argues that the Commission cannot require the recovery from CDA and LCA of the aid which was paid directly to the Pilz Group or diverted for its benefit. It points out that that aid reached the field of activity of the joint venture or its successors, even though, subsequently, it was immediately diverted in order to benefit the other companies in the Pilz Group. In the Commission's view, it is immaterial in that regard that the aid did not actually benefit the joint venture. It points out that, in the judgment in Case C-24/95 Alcan Deutschland [1997] ECR I-1591, the Court of Justice held that the plea that the gain has ceased to exist does not constitute a valid reason for opposing recovery of the aid. The Commission submits that the Court's reasoning is capable of being applied to circumstances such as those of the present case, where the mechanisms for transferring assets within a group of undertakings are virtually designed to eliminate the gain on the part of the initial recipient of the aid. In the Commission's view, in such circumstances, the plea that the gain has ceased to exist cannot be taken into account, and the unlawful advantage is, on the contrary, to be attributed to the undertakings within the group which originally received the aid of which they were the intended recipients. Similarly, the Commission submits that the TIB and the linked undertakings cannot rely on that plea either, since the diversion of the aid by the Pilz Group is also attributable to the joint venture and its successors.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.