Appeal brought on 2 May 2013 by Manutencoop Soc. coop., formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. arl and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manuntenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-246/13 P)

2013/C 207/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Manutencoop Soc. coop., formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. r.l. and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manuntenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. r.l. (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants put forward two pleas in law.

First, the order of the General Court is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ and Others v Commission regarding the duty to state the reasons for decisions of the Commission relating to State aid. In particular, the General Court did not comply with that judgment in so far as it states that a decision of the Commission ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. However, even though the decision at issue in the present case lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to find any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.

Second, the order is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ regarding the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court in that judgment, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to clarify the ‘modalities’ of any such verification. Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the information necessary to show that the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic reversed the burden of proof, requiring the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States.