Volltextveröffentlichungen (14)

• Judicialis

  -

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• Europäischer Gerichtshof

  Alzetta u.a. / Kommission

• EU-Kommission

  Alzetta Mauro und andere gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften.

  Verfahrensordnung des Gerichts, Artikel 104 § 3
  1 Verfahren - Zulässigkeit - Antrag auf Aussetzung des Vollzugs der angefochtenen Entscheidung - Antrag, der in ein und demselben Schriftsatz zusammen mit der Klage eingereicht wird - Unzulässigkeit

• EU-Kommission

  Alzetta Mauro und andere gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften.

  Güterkraftverkehr - Staatliche Beihilfen - Nichtigkeitsklage - Beeinträchtigung des innergemeinschaftlichen Handels und Verfälschung des Wettbewerbs - Voraussetzungen einer Ausnahme vom Verbot des Artikels 92 Absatz 1 EG-Vertrag (nach Änderung jetzt Artikel 87 Absatz 1 EG) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• Wolters Kluwer(Abodienst, Leitsatz/Tenor frei) (Leitsatz)

  Unvereinbarkeit von Beihilfen an Güterkraftverkehrsunternehmen mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt; Erfordernis der Einreichung eines Antrags auf Aussetzung des Vollzugs von Maßnahmen eines Organs mit besonderem Schriftsatz; Nachweis einer tatsächlichen Beeinträchtigung des ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof (Verfahrensdokumentation)

  Nichtigerklärung der Entscheidung der Kommission vom 30. Juli 1997 über Beihilfen der Region Friuli-Venezia Giulia zugunsten der Kraftverkehrsunternehmen - Durch zwei Regionalgesetze von 1981 und 1985 eingeführte Beihilfen, die seit der Öffnung des Kabotageverkehrs für ...

Verfahrensgang

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97, T-601/97, T-602/97, T-603/97, T-604/97, T-605/97, T-606/97, T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98, T-4/98, T-5/98, T-6/98, T-23/98
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.05.2003 - C-298/00
• EuGH, 29.04.2004 - C-298/00

Wird zitiert von ... (61)Zitiert selbst (40)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 14.09.1994 - C-278/92

  Spanien / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  Artikel 92 Absatz 1 des Vertrages finde nur dann Anwendung, wenn die betreffende Beihilfe den Handel zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten beeinträchtige (Urteil des Gerichtshofes vom 3. Februar 1977 in der Rechtssache 52/76, Benedetti, Slg. 1977, 163, Nr. 2 des Tenors) und die Stellung eines Unternehmens gegenüber konkurrierenden Unternehmen im innergemeinschaftlichen Handel verstärke (Urteil des Gerichtshofes vom 14. September 1994 in den Rechtssachen C-278/92 bis C-280/92, Spanien/Kommission, Slg. 1994, I-4103, Randnr. 40).

  25, 44 und 45) entschieden, daß, "[wenn]... eine von einem Mitgliedstaat gewährte Finanzhilfe die Stellung eines Unternehmens gegenüber anderen Wettbewerbern im innergemeinschaftlichen Handel [verstärkt],... dieser als von der Beihilfe beeinflußt erachtet werden [muß]" (vgl. auch die Schlußanträge von Generalanwalt Capotorti in jener Rechtssache, Slg. 1980, 2693, 2697; im gleichen Sinn Urteile Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 40, und Vlaams Gewest/Kommission, Randnr. 50).

  Das Gericht hat diese Entscheidung, wie bereits erwähnt (Randnr. 81 dieses Urteils), damit begründet, daß, "[wenn]... eine staatliche oder aus staatlichen Mitteln gewährte Finanzhilfe die Stellung eines Unternehmens gegenüber konkurrierenden Unternehmen im gemeinschaftlichen Handel [stärkt],... dieser als von der Beihilfe beeinflußt erachtet werden [muß]" (Randnrn. 48 bis 50 des Urteils Vlaams Gewest/Kommission; vgl. auch Urteile des Gerichtshofes Tubemeuse, Randnr. 43, vom 21. März 1991 in der Rechtssache C-303/88, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1991, I-1433, Randnr. 27, und Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 42).

  Wenn nämlich ein Mitgliedstaat einem Unternehmen eine Beihilfe gewährt, kann die inländische Erzeugung dadurch beibehalten oder erhöht werden, so daß sich die Chancen der in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten niedergelassenen Unternehmen, ihre Erzeugnisse auf den Markt dieses Mitgliedstaats auszuführen, verringern (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 13. Juli 1988 in der Rechtssache 102/87, Frankreich/Kommission, Slg. 1988, 4067, Randnr. 19, vom 21. März 1991, 1talien/Kommission, Randnr. 27, Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 40, und vom 17. Juni 1999 in der Rechtssache C-75/97, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1999, I-3671, Randnrn.

  Bei dieser Untersuchung obliegt es der Kommission, die positiven Wirkungen der Beihilfe und die negativen Auswirkungen auf die Handelsbedingungen und die Aufrechterhaltung eines unverfälschten Wettbewerbs gegeneinander abzuwägen (Urteile Philip Morris, Randnrn. 24 und 26, Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 51, und British Airways u. a./Kommission, Randnrn.

  169 Zunächst ist zu der angeblichen Verletzung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes darauf hinzuweisen, daß die Rückforderungspflicht grundsätzlich nicht außer Verhältnis zu den mit den Artikeln 92, 93 und 94 des Vertrages verfolgten Zielen stehen kann, weil die Beseitigung einer rechtswidrigen Beihilfe durch Rückforderung der gezahlten Beihilfe nebst Zinsen die denknotwendige Folge der Feststellung der Unvereinbarkeit dieser Beihilfe mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt ist und lediglich die Wiederherstellung der früheren Situation bezweckt (Urteile des Gerichtshofes, Tubemeuse, Randnr. 66, Spanien/Kommission vom 14. September 1994, Randnr. 75, vom 14. Januar 1997 in der Rechtssache C-169/95, Spanien/Kommission, Slg. 1997, I-135, Randnr. 47, und vom 17. Juni 1999 in der Rechtssache Belgien/Kommission, Randnr. 68, sowie Urteil Siemens/Kommission, Randnr. 96).

  Ein umsichtiger Wirtschaftsteilnehmer muß sich nämlich normalerweise vergewissern können, ob dieses Verfahren beachtet worden ist (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 20. September 1990 in der Rechtssache C-5/89, Kommission/Deutschland, Slg. 1990, I-3437, Randnr. 16, und vom 14. Januar 1997 in der Rechtssache Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 51, sowie Urteil des Gerichts vom 15. September 1998 in den Rechtssachen T-126/96 und T-127/96, BFM und EFIM/Kommission, Slg. 1998, II-3437, Randnr. 69).

• EuGH, 28.04.1993 - C-364/90

  Italien / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  56 Die Kläger in der Rechtssache T-312/97 verweisen darauf, daß die von der Kommission angeführte Rechtsprechung, wonach der geringe Umfang von Beihilfen auch an kleinere Unternehmen nicht von vornherein die Möglichkeit einer Beeinträchtigung des Handels ausschließe, in Wirklichkeit eine Vermutung zugunsten der Vereinbarkeit solcher Beihilfen mit dem Gemeinschaftsrecht vorbehaltlich des Gegenbeweises aufstelle (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 21. März 1990 in der Rechtssache C-142/87, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1990, I-959; nachstehend: Urteil Tubemeuse, Randnr. 43, und vom 28. April 1993 in der Rechtssache C-364/90, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1993, I-2097, Randnr. 24).

  Erstens schließe weder der verhältnismäßig geringe Umfang einer Beihilfe noch die verhältnismäßig geringe Größe des begünstigten Unternehmens von vornherein die Möglichkeit einer Beeinträchtigung des Handels zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und einer Verfälschung des Wettbewerbs aus (Urteile Tubemeuse, Randnr. 43, und Italien/Kommission, Randnr. 24).

  So hat der Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil Philip Morris, (Randnr. 11) in Bestätigung einer älteren Rechtsprechung (Urteil des Gerichtshofes vom 2. Juli 1974 in der Rechtssache 173/73, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1974, 709, Randnrn.

  Das Gericht hat diese Entscheidung, wie bereits erwähnt (Randnr. 81 dieses Urteils), damit begründet, daß, "[wenn]... eine staatliche oder aus staatlichen Mitteln gewährte Finanzhilfe die Stellung eines Unternehmens gegenüber konkurrierenden Unternehmen im gemeinschaftlichen Handel [stärkt],... dieser als von der Beihilfe beeinflußt erachtet werden [muß]" (Randnrn. 48 bis 50 des Urteils Vlaams Gewest/Kommission; vgl. auch Urteile des Gerichtshofes Tubemeuse, Randnr. 43, vom 21. März 1991 in der Rechtssache C-303/88, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1991, I-1433, Randnr. 27, und Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 42).

  85 Im übrigen begründet das Urteil Italien/Kommission vom 28. April 1993 entgegen der Auffassung der Kläger in der Rechtssache T-312/97 durchaus keine Vermutung für die Vereinbarkeit staatlicher Beihilfen an kleine und mittlere Unternehmen.

  36 bis 39, und vom 19. Mai 1999 in der Rechtssache C-6/97, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1999, I-2981, Randnr. 21).

  Bestehende Beihilfen können daher durchgeführt werden, solange die Kommission nicht ihre Unvereinbarkeit mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt festgestellt hat (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 30. Juni 1992 in der Rechtssache C-47/91, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1992, I-4145, Randnrn.

• EuGH, 21.03.1990 - 142/87

  Belgien / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  56 Die Kläger in der Rechtssache T-312/97 verweisen darauf, daß die von der Kommission angeführte Rechtsprechung, wonach der geringe Umfang von Beihilfen auch an kleinere Unternehmen nicht von vornherein die Möglichkeit einer Beeinträchtigung des Handels ausschließe, in Wirklichkeit eine Vermutung zugunsten der Vereinbarkeit solcher Beihilfen mit dem Gemeinschaftsrecht vorbehaltlich des Gegenbeweises aufstelle (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 21. März 1990 in der Rechtssache C-142/87, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1990, I-959; nachstehend: Urteil Tubemeuse, Randnr. 43, und vom 28. April 1993 in der Rechtssache C-364/90, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1993, I-2097, Randnr. 24).

  65 In der Rechtssache T-298/97 führen die Kläger hierzu an, daß Ausgleichsbeihilfen nur dann untersagt seien, wenn sie Gemeinschaftsunternehmen gegenüber den in anderen Mitgliedstaaten ansässigen begünstigen sollten, nicht aber, wenn sie aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen wie etwa die Notwendigkeit, den Wettbewerb von durch eine privilegierte Situation begünstigten Einfuhren aus Drittländern zu bekämpfen, objektiv gerechtfertigt seien (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 2. Februar 1988 in den Rechtssachen 67/85, 68/85 und 70/85, Van der Kooy u. a./Kommission, Slg. 1988, 219, und vom 29. Februar 1996 in der Rechtssache C-56/93, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1996, I-723).

  Wenn nämlich ein Mitgliedstaat einem Unternehmen eine Beihilfe gewährt, kann die inländische Erzeugung dadurch beibehalten oder erhöht werden, so daß sich die Chancen der in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten niedergelassenen Unternehmen, ihre Erzeugnisse auf den Markt dieses Mitgliedstaats auszuführen, verringern (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 13. Juli 1988 in der Rechtssache 102/87, Frankreich/Kommission, Slg. 1988, 4067, Randnr. 19, vom 21. März 1991, 1talien/Kommission, Randnr. 27, Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 40, und vom 17. Juni 1999 in der Rechtssache C-75/97, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1999, I-3671, Randnrn.

  99 Entgegen der Auslegung der Kläger wird in dem Urteil Van der Kooy u. a./Kommission (Randnrn. 28 bis 30) und dem Urteil Belgien/Kommission vom 29. Februar 1996 (Randnrn. 10, 39 und 66) lediglich der Grundsatz aufgestellt, daß ein Vorteil zugunsten eines Unternehmens, mit dem eine ungünstige Wettbewerbssituation abgestellt werden soll, dann keine Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 92 Absatz 1 des Vertrages darstellt, wenn sie aufgrund wirtschaftlicher Kriterien gerechtfertigt ist und die Wirtschaftsteilnehmer in den verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten nicht diskriminiert.

  Der Gerichtshof hat nämlich entschieden, daß ein von einem staatlich kontrollierten Unternehmen eingeräumter Vorzugstarif dann keine Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 92 Absatz 1 des Vertrages ist, wenn dieser im Kontext des betreffenden Marktes objektiv durch wirtschaftliche Gründe wie die Notwendigkeit gerechtfertigt ist, auf diesem Markt im Preiswettbewerb mit anderen Energiequellen zu bestehen (Urteil Van der Kooy u. a./Kommission, Randnr. 30) oder gegen den Wettbewerb durch Einfuhren aus Drittländern vorzugehen und einen bedeutenden Kundenstamm zu erhalten (Urteil Belgien/Kommission, Randnr. 39).

  169 Zunächst ist zu der angeblichen Verletzung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes darauf hinzuweisen, daß die Rückforderungspflicht grundsätzlich nicht außer Verhältnis zu den mit den Artikeln 92, 93 und 94 des Vertrages verfolgten Zielen stehen kann, weil die Beseitigung einer rechtswidrigen Beihilfe durch Rückforderung der gezahlten Beihilfe nebst Zinsen die denknotwendige Folge der Feststellung der Unvereinbarkeit dieser Beihilfe mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt ist und lediglich die Wiederherstellung der früheren Situation bezweckt (Urteile des Gerichtshofes, Tubemeuse, Randnr. 66, Spanien/Kommission vom 14. September 1994, Randnr. 75, vom 14. Januar 1997 in der Rechtssache C-169/95, Spanien/Kommission, Slg. 1997, I-135, Randnr. 47, und vom 17. Juni 1999 in der Rechtssache Belgien/Kommission, Randnr. 68, sowie Urteil Siemens/Kommission, Randnr. 96).

• EuGH, 02.02.1988 - 67/85

  Van der Kooy / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  65 In der Rechtssache T-298/97 führen die Kläger hierzu an, daß Ausgleichsbeihilfen nur dann untersagt seien, wenn sie Gemeinschaftsunternehmen gegenüber den in anderen Mitgliedstaaten ansässigen begünstigen sollten, nicht aber, wenn sie aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen wie etwa die Notwendigkeit, den Wettbewerb von durch eine privilegierte Situation begünstigten Einfuhren aus Drittländern zu bekämpfen, objektiv gerechtfertigt seien (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 2. Februar 1988 in den Rechtssachen 67/85, 68/85 und 70/85, Van der Kooy u. a./Kommission, Slg. 1988, 219, und vom 29. Februar 1996 in der Rechtssache C-56/93, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1996, I-723).

  99 Entgegen der Auslegung der Kläger wird in dem Urteil Van der Kooy u. a./Kommission (Randnrn. 28 bis 30) und dem Urteil Belgien/Kommission vom 29. Februar 1996 (Randnrn. 10, 39 und 66) lediglich der Grundsatz aufgestellt, daß ein Vorteil zugunsten eines Unternehmens, mit dem eine ungünstige Wettbewerbssituation abgestellt werden soll, dann keine Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 92 Absatz 1 des Vertrages darstellt, wenn sie aufgrund wirtschaftlicher Kriterien gerechtfertigt ist und die Wirtschaftsteilnehmer in den verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten nicht diskriminiert.

  Der Gerichtshof hat nämlich entschieden, daß ein von einem staatlich kontrollierten Unternehmen eingeräumter Vorzugstarif dann keine Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 92 Absatz 1 des Vertrages ist, wenn dieser im Kontext des betreffenden Marktes objektiv durch wirtschaftliche Gründe wie die Notwendigkeit gerechtfertigt ist, auf diesem Markt im Preiswettbewerb mit anderen Energiequellen zu bestehen (Urteil Van der Kooy u. a./Kommission, Randnr. 30) oder gegen den Wettbewerb durch Einfuhren aus Drittländern vorzugehen und einen bedeutenden Kundenstamm zu erhalten (Urteil Belgien/Kommission, Randnr. 39).

• EuGH, 17.09.1980 - 730/79

  Philip Morris / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  Im gleichen Sinn hat das Gericht, obwohl bei der Zahlung der Beihilfe kein Handel zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten bestand, in seinem Urteil vom 6. Juli 1995 in den Rechtssachen T-447/93 bis T-449/93 (AITEC u. a./Kommission, Slg. 1995, II-1971, Randnrn. 139 und 141) entschieden, daß die Kommission verpflichtet gewesen sei, zum Zeitpunkt dieser Zahlung die "absehbaren Auswirkungen" dieser Beihilfe auf den Wettbewerb und den innergemeinschaftlichen Handel zu prüfen (vgl. auch Urteil des Gerichtshofes vom 17. September 1980 in der Rechtssache 730/79, Philip Morris/Kommission, Slg. 1980, 2671, Randnr. 12).

  Es genügt nämlich, daß die Kommission nachweist, daß die betreffenden Beihilfen geeignet sind, den Handel zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten zu beeinträchtigen, und den Wettbewerb zu verfälschen drohen, ohne daß es erforderlich wäre, den Markt abzugrenzen und seine Struktur und die hieraus folgenden Wettbewerbsbeziehungen zu prüfen (Urteil Philip Morris/Kommission, Randnrn. 9 bis 12).

• EuGH, 14.02.1990 - 301/87

  Frankreich / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  Nach gefestigter Rechtsprechung würde dies nämlich die Mitgliedstaaten, die entgegen ihrer Unterrichtungspflicht Beihilfen zahlen, zum Nachteil derjenigen begünstigen, die Beihilfen bereits in der Planungsphase anmelden (Urteil des Gerichtshofes vom 14. Februar 1990 in der Rechtssache C-301/87, Frankreich/Kommission, Slg. 1990, I-307, Randnrn.

  Wenn nämlich ein Mitgliedstaat einem Unternehmen eine Beihilfe gewährt, kann die inländische Erzeugung dadurch beibehalten oder erhöht werden, so daß sich die Chancen der in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten niedergelassenen Unternehmen, ihre Erzeugnisse auf den Markt dieses Mitgliedstaats auszuführen, verringern (Urteile des Gerichtshofes vom 13. Juli 1988 in der Rechtssache 102/87, Frankreich/Kommission, Slg. 1988, 4067, Randnr. 19, vom 21. März 1991, 1talien/Kommission, Randnr. 27, Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 40, und vom 17. Juni 1999 in der Rechtssache C-75/97, Belgien/Kommission, Slg. 1999, I-3671, Randnrn.

• EuG, 30.04.1998 - T-214/95

  Vlaamse Gewest / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  32 und 33, sowie Urteil des Gerichts vom 30. April 1998 in der Rechtssache T-214/95, Vlaams Gewest, Slg. 1998, II-717, Randnr. 67).

  Das Verbot in Artikel 92 Absatz 1 des Vertrages gilt für jede Beihilfe, die den Wettbewerb verfälscht oder zu verfälschen droht, unabhängig von ihrer Höhe, sofern sie den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten beeinträchtigt" (Urteil Vlaams Gewest/Kommission, Randnr. 46).

• EuG, 25.06.1998 - T-371/94

  British Airways u.a. / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  Zwar braucht die Kommission in der Begründung der Entscheidung nicht auf alle tatsächlichen und rechtlichen Gesichtspunkte einzugehen, die von den Beteiligten im Verwaltungsverfahren vorgetragen worden sind, sie hat jedoch alle maßgeblichen Umstände und Faktoren des Einzelfalls zu berücksichtigen (Urteil des Gerichts vom 25. Juni 1998 in den Rechtssachen T-371/94 und T-394/94, British Airways u. a./Kommission, Slg. 1998, II-2405, Randnrn.

  Bei dieser Untersuchung obliegt es der Kommission, die positiven Wirkungen der Beihilfe und die negativen Auswirkungen auf die Handelsbedingungen und die Aufrechterhaltung eines unverfälschten Wettbewerbs gegeneinander abzuwägen (Urteile Philip Morris, Randnrn. 24 und 26, Spanien/Kommission, Randnr. 51, und British Airways u. a./Kommission, Randnrn.

• EuG, 15.06.1999 - T-288/97

  Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  25 Ferner hat die Region Friaul-Julisch Venetien mit Klageschrift, die am 10. November 1997 bei der Kanzlei des Gerichts eingegangen ist, eine Nichtigkeitsklage gegen die angefochtene Entscheidung erhoben (Rechtssache T-288/97).

  Die Unzuständigkeitseinrede der Kommission gegen diese Klage ist mit Urteil des Gerichts vom 15. Juni 1999 in der Rechtssache T-288/97 (Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia/Kommission, Slg. 1999, II-1871) zurückgewiesen worden.

• EuGH, 02.07.1974 - 173/73

  Italien / Kommission

  Auszug aus EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-298/97

  So hat der Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil Philip Morris, (Randnr. 11) in Bestätigung einer älteren Rechtsprechung (Urteil des Gerichtshofes vom 2. Juli 1974 in der Rechtssache 173/73, Italien/Kommission, Slg. 1974, 709, Randnrn.
• EuGH, 20.09.1990 - C-5/89

  Kommission / Deutschland
• EuGH, 21.03.1991 - 303/88

  Italien / Kommission
• EuGH, 17.06.1999 - C-75/97

  Belgien / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Begriff - Erhöhte Ermäßigung der …
• EuGH, 15.03.1994 - C-387/92

  Banco Exterior de España / Ayuntamiento de Valencia
• EuGH, 15.05.1997 - C-355/95

  TWD / Kommission
• EuGH, 10.12.1969 - 6/69

  Kommission / Frankreich
• EuGH, 13.03.1985 - 296/82

  Niederlande und Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek / Kommission
• EuGH, 14.01.1997 - C-169/95

  Spanien / Kommission
• EuGH, 17.06.1999 - C-295/97

  Piaggio - "Staatliche Beihilfen Artikel 92 EG-Vertrag (nach Änderung jetzt …
• EuGH, 03.02.1977 - 52/76

  Benedetti / Munari
• EuGH, 29.02.1996 - C-56/93

  Belgien / Kommission
• EuGH, 19.05.1999 - C-6/97

  Italien / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfe - Begriff - Steueranrechnung - …
• EuG, 22.10.1997 - T-213/95

  SCK und FNK / Kommission
• EuG, 06.07.1995 - T-447/93

  Entscheidung zum Gesetz zur Einrichtung zur Umstrukturierung von Unternehmen; …
• EuG, 08.06.1995 - T-459/93

  Beihilfen zur Förderung der Bereiche Datenverarbeitung und Telekommunikation ; …
• EuG, 12.12.1996 - T-380/94

  Association internationale des utilisateurs de fils de filaments artificiels et …
• EuGH, 13.07.1988 - 102/87

  Frankreich / Kommission
• EuG, 15.09.1998 - T-126/96

  EFIM / Kommission
• EuGH, 30.06.1992 - C-47/91

  Italien / Kommission
• EuG, 22.10.1996 - T-266/94

  Foreningen af Jernskibs- og Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen, …
• EuG, 16.09.1998 - T-133/95

  IECC / Kommission
• EuG, 30.04.1998 - T-16/96

  Cityflyer Express / Kommission
• EuGH, 05.10.1999 - C-251/97

  Frankreich / Kommission
• EuG, 05.11.1997 - T-149/95

  Ducros / Kommission
• EuG, 11.03.1999 - T-136/94

  Eurofer / Kommission
• EuG, 29.11.1993 - T-56/92

  Casper Koelman gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Klage - …
• EuG, 09.11.1995 - T-346/94

  France-aviation gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Erstattung …
• EuG, 06.07.1995 - T-449/93

  Entscheidung zum Gesetz zur Einrichtung zur Umstrukturierung von Unternehmen; …
• EuG, 19.06.1995 - T-107/94

  Christina Kik gegen Rat der Europäischen Union und Kommission der Europäischen …
• EuGH, 21.01.1965 - 108/63

  Officine elettromeccaniche A. Merlini gegen Hohe Behörde der EGKS.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-606/97

  Zootrans / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-601/97

  Fabrizio Cernecca / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-602/97

  Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-603/97

  Giuseppe Camaur / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-604/97

  Cointra Transport and Trade Co. / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-605/97

  Autotrasporti Silvano Zottich / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-4/98

  Birri Fiorindo / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuG, 15.06.2000 - T-5/98

  Framalicco Maria Cecilia / Kommission

  In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98,.

  The system introduced by Law No 28/1981 was replaced by Regional Law No 4 of 7 January 1985 on action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward (Annex 113 to the application in Case T-313/97, 'Law No 4/1985).

  By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 December 1997 (Case T-298/97), 11 December 1997 (Cases T-312/97 and T-313/97), 16 December 1997 (Case T-315/97), 19 December 1997 (Case T-600/97 to T-607/97), 2 January 1998 (Case T-1/98), 5 January 1998 (Cases T-3/98 to T-6/98) and 26 January 1998 (Case T-23/98), the applicants brought the present actions for the annulment, in whole or part, of the contested decision.

  By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, ordered, at the Commission's request and after hearing the other parties, the joinder of Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 for the purposes of the written procedure, the hearing and judgment.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 submitted their written observations on this statement on 5 March 1999.

  The applicants in Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, together with the Commission, replied to those questions on 13 August 1999, and the Italian Government replied on 1 September 1999.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the applicants claim that the Court should:.

  In the present case, the application for suspension of the contested decision, contained in the application for annulment in Case T-298/97, must therefore be declared inadmissible.

  In Cases T-313/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98 the applicants claim, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance should make the repayment of the aid granted the responsibility of the Member State concerned, it being solely responsible for any irregularity arising from the failure to give notice of the system of aid in question.

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 ask the Court of First Instance, in the alternative, to limit the amount of aid to be repaid by deducting from the gross amount of aid the amount of tax for which they are liable.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants consider that the mere fact that an aid might affect trade and/or distort competition does not suffice to render that aid incompatible with the common market.

  The applicants in Case T-312/97 state that the case-law cited by the Commission, to the effect that the low amount of aid granted to small enterprises does not in principle mean that trade is not affected, in fact establishes a presumption that such aid is compatible with Community law, unless otherwise proved (Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission, the 'Tubemeuse case [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43, and Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 24).

  The applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 observe that the total amount of aid disbursed to more than 300 undertakings between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 was only ITL 17 billion, from which should be deducted the amount of aid for combined transport that the Commission declared compatible with the Treaty.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 stress the negligible amount of the aid and the low number of recipients.

  Furthermore, in Case T-312/97, the applicants point out that, contrary to what has been stated by the Commission, the circumstance that most of the undertakings granted the aid in question operate solely at local level is wholly pertinent, since the means of transport used in international transport differ in their specifications from those used in domestic transport.

  According to the applicants in Case T-298/97, the fact that the Community quota was taken up in full shows that the market had not been affected by the aid in question.

  In Cases T-298/97, the applicants claim that compensatory aid is prohibited only when its aim is to favour Community undertakings over those established in other Member States, but not when it is objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to counteract competition from imports from third countries enjoyinga preferential situation (Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1998] ECR 219, and Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723).

  On the subject of discount rates, the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98 claim that Spain was the only country with higher rates than those in Italy.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants submit that, contrary to what is stated by the Commission, distortion of competition arising from the preferential position of Austrian, Slovenian and Croat hauliers did not affect all Community operators equally.

  The Commission rejects the argument put forward by the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98 to the effect that it should have taken account of the effect of tax levied on the aid in question.

  It is necessary to reject the restrictive interpretation of Article 92(1) of the Treaty proposed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, to the effect that only aid having an actual effect on trade between Member States and distorting competition is covered by this provision.

  In addition, contrary to what is claimed by the applicants in Case T-312/97, the judgment of 28 April 1993, Italy v Commission, cited above, does not establish any presumption that State aid disbursed to small or medium-sized undertakings is compatible with the common market.

  Furthermore, in view of the market structure described in the preceding paragraph and the multiplicity of eligible operations, the Commission cannot be required to take account of the precise amount of aid granted and the precise number of recipients, as contended by the applicants in Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, since it has been established that over the period in question hauliers in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region benefited from aid that was capable of strengthening their competitive position and thus affecting competition and intra-Community trade.

  In Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants claim that the aid in dispute was planned as a temporary remedy for the structural difficulties due to the over-use of old equipment and of manpower, with a serious risk to safety.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the aid in question did not increase transport capacity, as the cabotage authorisations in the quota were valid only for a specific vehicle and could not be transferred.

  In Cases T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the applicants state that the aid in question is aid for investment to be used for the creation of infrastructure (construction, purchase and expansion of premises), the increase and replacement of fixed and mobile equipment and the renewal of transport vehicles.

  According to the applicants in Case T-312/97, that aid was not operating aid as its purpose was not to improve the financial position of the recipient undertakings but to put them on an equal competitive footing, in particular, with road hauliers established in Austria, Croatia and Slovenia.

  In Case T-298/97, the applicants observe that the aid in question supports a pre-planned restructuring of the commercial road haulage sector, by facilitating the modernisation of equipment.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98, the applicants submit that the aid was part of a specific restructuring process that was needed to ensure safety and to protect the environment.

  In Cases T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants indicate that, according to the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Commission during the administrative procedure, a restructuring plan was being drawn up to enable the undertakings concerned to adapt their road fleets to the safety and environmental protection standards laid down by the regulations of neighbouring States.

  In Cases T-312/97, T-313/97 and T-23/98, the applicants consider that the existence of a plan and/or a restructuring process was not required by Community regulations in order for the application of a derogation from the prohibition of State aid.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97 the applicants complain that the Commission failed to give detailed consideration to the applicability of the derogations laid down by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty to the aid in question.

  In Cases T-600/97 to T-607/97, the Commission submits that, in the contested decision (section VIII), it considered the applicability to the aid in question of the derogations provided for by Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.

  As regards the date from which the contested decision requires recovery of the aid granted in the international transport sector, the applicants in Case T-298/97 and the Italian Government state, firstly, that Article 4, to which Article 5 of the contested decision refers in providing for the recovery of aid incompatible with the Treaty, unequivocally finds that aid paid from 1 July 1990 is incompatible with the common market, and that article does not therefore have to be interpreted in the light of the grounds for that decision.

  The applicants in Case T-298/97 argue that the recipient undertakings' expectations had been strengthened by the fact that the cabotage market was liberalised during the period of implementation of the disputed regional laws and that a considerable period had elapsed between this liberalisation and the Commission's initiation of the proceedings.

  In Case T-312/97, the applicants observe that the lawfulness of aid granted in the national transport sector before 1 July 1990 had created a legitimate expectation in the lawfulness of all the aid in question, including that in the international transport sector.

  According to the applicants in Cases T-312/97, T-315/97, T-1/98 and T-3/98 to T-6/98, the case-law on the subject of the protection of legitimate expectations is inconsistent.

• EuGH, 29.04.2004 - C-372/97

  Italien / Kommission

  25 Neben der vorliegenden Klage der Italienischen Republik haben einzelne Güterkraftverkehrsunternehmen, die die Beihilfen der Region erhalten haben (im Folgenden: begünstigte Unternehmen), mit Klageschriften, die zwischen dem 2. Dezember 1997 und 26. Januar 1998 bei der Kanzlei des Gerichts erster Instanz der Europäischen Gemeinschaften eingegangen sind und unter den Aktenzeichen T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 bis T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 bis T-6/98 und T-23/98 in das Register der Kanzlei des Gerichts eingetragen worden sind, ebenfalls Teilnichtigerklärung der angefochtenen Entscheidung beantragt.

  28 Mit Urteil vom 15. Juni 2000 in den Rechtssachen T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 bis T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 bis T-6/98 und T-23/98 (Alzetta u. a./Kommission, Slg. 2000, II-2319) hat das Gericht Artikel 2 der angefochtenen Entscheidung für nichtig erklärt, soweit er die Beihilfen für rechtswidrig erklärt, die den ausschließlich im örtlichen, regionalen oder inländischen Güterkraftverkehr tätigen Unternehmen ab 1. Juli 1990 gewährt worden sind, sowie Artikel 5 dieser Entscheidung, soweit er die Italienische Republik zur Rückforderung dieser Beihilfen verpflichtet.

  34 Wie bereits in Randnummer 28 des vorliegenden Urteils erwähnt, sind in dem nach Erhebung der vorliegenden Klage verkündeten Urteil Alzetta u. a./Kommission die Artikel 2 und 5 der angefochtenen Entscheidung für nichtig erklärt worden, soweit sie die Beihilfen an die im örtlichen, regionalen oder inländischen Güterkraftverkehr tätigen Unternehmen betreffen.

  35 Die Kommission hat im Rechtsmittelverfahren gegen das Urteil Alzetta u. a./Kommission auch keine Rüge in Bezug auf die Nichtigerklärung der Artikel 2 und 5 der angefochtenen Entscheidung geltend gemacht, soweit dies die Beihilfen an die im örtlichen, regionalen oder inländischen Güterkraftverkehr tätigen Unternehmen betrifft.

  37 Daher ergibt sich aus dem Urteil Alzetta u. a./Kommission und der Zurückweisung des dagegen eingelegten Rechtsmittels durch das Urteil Italien/Kommission vom heutigen Tag zwangsläufig, dass die vorliegende Klage in Bezug auf den Antrag, die Artikel 2 und 5 der angefochtenen Entscheidung für nichtig zu erklären, soweit sie die Beihilfen an die im örtlichen, regionalen oder inländischen Güterkraftverkehr tätigen Unternehmen betreffen, gegenstandslos geworden ist.

• BFH, 22.05.2025 - V R 22/23

  Beihilfeprüfung und steuerrechtliche Gemeinnützigkeit von Servicekörperschaften

  Dazu ist es nicht erforderlich, dass eine Beihilfemaßnahme eine tatsächliche Auswirkung auf den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten hat oder zu einer tatsächlichen Wettbewerbsverzerrung führt (vgl. EuGH-Urteile Fallimento Esperia und GSE vom 07.03.2024 - C-558/22, EU:C:2024:209, Rz 64; Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze vom 10.01.2006 - C-222/04, EU:C:2006:8, Rz 140; s.a. Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union --EuG-- Alzetta u.a./Kommission vom 15.06.2000 - T-298/97, EU:T:2000:151, Rz 80).
• EuG, 06.03.2003 - T-228/99

  DAS GERICHT ERKLÄRT WEGEN UNZUREICHENDER BEGRÜNDUNG DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG DER …
• EuGH, 29.04.2004 - C-298/00

  Italien / Kommission
• EuG, 24.03.2011 - T-443/08

  Freistaat Sachsen u.a. / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Beihilfe zugunsten …
• EuG, 28.11.2008 - T-254/00

  Hotel Cipriani / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Sozialbeitragsentlastungen …
• BGH, 06.11.2008 - III ZR 279/07

  Pflichten der Bewilligungsbehörde einer Beihilfe gegenüber dem Sicherungsgeber
• EuG, 29.06.2012 - T-360/09

  Die gegen E.ON und GDF Suez wegen Aufteilung des französischen und des deutschen …
• EuG, 09.09.2009 - T-227/01

  Diputación Foral de Álava und Gobierno Vasco / Kommission - Staatliche …
• EuG, 22.04.2016 - T-50/06

  Das Gericht bestätigt die Entscheidung der Kommission, mit der die Rückforderung …
• EuG, 24.09.2019 - T-755/15

  The General Court confirms the Commission's decision on the aid measure granted …
• EuGH, 23.01.2019 - C-387/17

  Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.05.2003 - C-298/00

  Italien / Kommission
• EuG, 09.09.2009 - T-369/06

  Holland Malt / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Malzherstellung - …
• EuG, 21.09.2005 - T-87/05

  DAS GERICHT BESTÄTIGT DAS VERBOT DES ERWERBS VON GAS DE PORTUGAL DURCH ENERGIAS …
• EuG, 24.03.2011 - T-455/08

  Mitteldeutsche Flughafen und Flughafen Leipzig/Halle / Kommission - Staatliche …
• EuG, 15.06.2010 - T-177/07

  Der italienische Zuschuss zum Kauf oder zur Anmietung digitaler terrestrischer …
• EuG, 06.10.2009 - T-8/06

  FAB / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Digitales terrestrisches Fernsehen - …
• EuG, 14.01.2004 - T-109/01

  Fleuren Compost / Kommission - Nichtigkeitsklage - Staatliche Beihilfen - …
• EuG, 15.12.2009 - T-156/04

  Das Gericht erklärt die Entscheidung der Kommission für nichtig, mit der …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.09.2018 - C-387/17

  Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …
• EuG, 17.07.2014 - T-457/09

  Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband / Kommission - Staatliche …
• EuG, 11.03.2009 - T-354/05

  DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG DER KOMMISSION, DER ZUFOLGE DAS FRANZÖSISCHE …
• EuG, 15.06.2005 - T-349/03

  DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG DER KOMMISSION, WONACH DIE GEPLANTE UMSTRUKTURIERUNGSBEIHILFE …
• EuG, 16.01.2018 - T-747/15

  Das Gericht der EU bestätigt den Beschluss der Kommission, Frankreich zu …
• EuG, 19.10.2006 - T-503/04

  Pessoa e Costa / Kommission
• EuG, 22.02.2006 - T-34/02

  Le Levant 015 u.a. / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Begriff des Beteiligten …
• OLG Stuttgart, 21.03.2000 - 8 W 154/99

  "& Partner"; Firma einer GmbH
• EuG, 22.01.2013 - T-308/00

  Salzgitter / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Stahlindustrie - Steuerliche …
• EuG, 29.06.2012 - T-370/09

  GDF Suez / Kommission - Wettbewerb - Kartelle - Deutscher und französischer …
• EuG, 11.02.2009 - T-25/07

  Iride und Iride Energia / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Energiesektor - …
• EuG, 12.09.2007 - T-239/04

  Italien / Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Rechtsvorschriften, die für …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.10.2004 - C-172/03

  Heiser
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.12.2001 - C-197/99

  Belgien / Kommission
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.05.2001 - C-53/00

  Ferring
• EuG, 04.04.2001 - T-288/97

  Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia / Kommission
• EuG, 28.01.2009 - T-125/06

  Centro Studi Manieri / Rat - Öffentliche Dienstleistungsaufträge - Ausschreibung …
• EuG, 23.02.2001 - T-7/98

  Carlo De Nicola gegen Europäische Investitionsbank.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 20.11.2008 - C-494/06

  Kommission / Italien und Wam - Rechtsmittel - Staatliche Beihilfen - …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 01.07.2015 - C-357/14

  Electrabel und Dunamenti Erőmű / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Beihilfen …
• EuG, 18.01.2005 - T-93/02

  Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel / Kommission
• EuG, 12.07.2019 - T-291/17

  Transdev u.a./ Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Von Frankreich im Zeitraum …
• EuG, 12.09.2007 - T-323/04

  Brandt Italia / Kommission
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.05.2003 - C-372/97

  Italien / Kommission
• EuG, 12.07.2019 - T-292/17

  Région Île-de-France/ Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Von Frankreich im …
• EuG, 12.07.2019 - T-309/17

  Optile/ Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Von Frankreich im Zeitraum 1994 bis …
• EuG, 15.06.1999 - T-288/97

  Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia / Kommission
• EuG, 12.07.2019 - T-289/17

  Keolis CIF u.a./ Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Von Frankreich im Zeitraum …
• EuG, 19.09.2006 - T-166/01

  Lucchini / Kommission - EGKS - Staatliche Beihilfen - Umweltschutzbeihilfen - …
• EuG, 12.07.2019 - T-330/17

  Ceobus u.a./ Kommission - Staatliche Beihilfen - Von Frankreich im Zeitraum 1994 …
• EuG, 06.10.2004 - T-294/02

  Vicente-Nuñez / Kommission - Durchführung eines Urteils des Gerichts - …
• EuG, 16.10.2012 - T-289/12

  Pranacat Management / Rumänien u.a.
• EuG, 16.10.2012 - T-286/12

  Suriscom / Rumänien u.a.