Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of the European Communities (T-176/01)

Judgment of 18 Nov 2004

law://eu/cjeu/2001/t-176-01/para_55@2026-11-13

55The reference which Ferriere and the Italian Republic make to the Italgrani and Tirrenici cases previously examined by the Court of Justice (Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission (‘Italgrani’) [1994] ECR I-4635 and Case C-400/99 Italy v Commission (‘Tirrenia’) [2001] ECR I-7303) is irrelevant. In those cases, the Commission had initiated the formal procedure following complaints and the Italian Government contended that the aid granted to the undertakings concerned fell, in Italgrani, within an approved scheme and, in Tirrenia's case, within a public service contract, so that it constituted existing aid (Italgrani, paragraphs 6 and 12, and Tirrenia, paragraphs 8, 24 and 25). The Court of Justice stated in Italgrani that for the Commission to call in question ‘aid in strict conformity with the decision approving the aid scheme’ would jeopardise the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty (Italgrani, paragraph 24).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

History · 1 version

18 Nov 2004Reading

55The reference which Ferriere and the Italian Republic make to the Italgrani and Tirrenici cases previously examined by the Court of Justice (Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission (‘Italgrani’) [1994] ECR I-4635 and Case C-400/99 Italy v Commission (‘Tirrenia’) [2001] ECR I-7303) is irrelevant. In those cases, the Commission had initiated the formal procedure following complaints and the Italian Government contended that the aid granted to the undertakings concerned fell, in Italgrani, within an approved scheme and, in Tirrenia's case, within a public service contract, so that it constituted existing aid (Italgrani, paragraphs 6 and 12, and Tirrenia, paragraphs 8, 24 and 25). The Court of Justice stated in Italgrani that for the Commission to call in question ‘aid in strict conformity with the decision approving the aid scheme’ would jeopardise the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty (Italgrani, paragraph 24).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fourth Chamber, sitting with five Judges
Case: T-176/01 · ECLI:EU:T:2004:336
Decided: 18 Nov 2004
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: In Case T-176/01
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: Legal
Bench: 5 judges
H. Legal, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras, N.J. Forwood
Language: Italian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001TJ0176

Topics

State aid

Judgment of 18 Nov 2004

Connections

See on a map

Cited by 21: St. Jude Medical Coordination Center (SJM Coordination Center) v European Commission (T-420/16); Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd and Others v European Commission (T-508/19); Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission (T-129/07); Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. z o.o. v European Commission (T-263/15)2 provisions; Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union (T-160/14); Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and Others v Council of the European Union (T-162/14); Orange v European Commission (T-402/13)2 provisions; Deutsche Bahn AG and Others v European Commission (T-289/11, T-290/11, T-521/11)2 provisions; Italian Republic v European Commission (T-257/10); Wam Industriale SpA v European Commission (T-303/10); European Commission and Kingdom of Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-106/09 P, C-107/09 P); Eridania Sadam SpA v European Commission (T-579/08); Regione autonoma della Sardegna, SF Turistico Immobiliare Srl, Timsas Srl and Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA v European Commission (T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08, T-454/08)2 provisions; Italian Republic v European Commission (T-3/09); Cantiere navale De Poli SpA v European Commission (T-584/08); Freistaat Sachsen (Germany), MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH and MB System GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (T-102/07); Territorio Histórico de Álava - Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities (T-30/01); Operator ARP sp. z o.o. v Commission of the European Communities (T-291/06); Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA v Commission of the European Communities (T-25/07); Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (T-254/00); Reliance Industries Ltd v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (T-45/06)
Cites 18: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)7 provisions; Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (C-278/92, C-279/92, C-280/92); Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty; Koinopraxia Enóséon Georgikon Synetairismon Diacheiríséos Enchorion Proïonton Syn. PE (KYDEP) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (C-146/91); Förde-Reederei GmbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (T-170/00); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-400/99); Assunta Licata v Economic and Social Committee (270/84); Thai Bicycle Industry & Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-118/96); French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-17/99); Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) v Commission of the European Communities (C-321/99 P); Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control; Gebrüder Lorenz GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany and Land Rheinland-Pfalz (120/73); SA Oleifici Mediterranei v European Economic Community (26/81); Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission of the European Communities (T-228/99, T-233/99); Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (234/84); ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (T-6/99); Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (T-190/00); Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (C-351/98)