INHALT

Commission Decision of 19 November 2009 on State aid measures C 38/A/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 36/B/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni (notified under document C(2009) 8112) Text with EEA relevance

COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 November 2009
on State aid measures C 38/A/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 36/B/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni
(notified under document C(2009) 8112)
(Only the Italian text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2010/460/EC)
1.
PROCEDURE
1.1.
Case C 38/A/04
1.2.
Case C 36/B/06
2.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
2.1.
The main facts of the case
2.2.
The disputed legislative provisions and the regulatory context
2.2.1.
The legislative provisions
2.2.2.
The regulatory context in Italy
2.2.2.1. The AEEG
2.2.2.2. The Equalisation Fund
2.3.
The context in which the preferential tariff was introduced and its changes over time
2.3.1.
Introduction of the tariff: the 1996 Alumix decision
2.4.
Transformation of the Alcoa tariff into a ‘general system charge’ and relevant changes in the financing mechanism
2.5.
The first disputed extension of the Alcoa tariff
2.6.
The second disputed extension of the Alcoa tariff
3.
DECISION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE EC TREATY
3.1.
Case C 38/A/04
3.2.
Case C 36/B/06
3.3.
Alcoa’s challenge to the 2006 decision to initiate proceedings
4.
OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES
4.1.
Observations submitted by Alcoa
4.1.1.
Case C 38/A/04
4.1.2.
Case C 36/B/06
4.1.2.1. Power supply arrangements are indispensable
4.1.2.2. The tariff is not State aid
4.1.2.3. No advantage
4.1.2.4. No impact on trade
4.1.2.5. No State resources
4.1.2.6. Existing rather than new aid
4.1.2.7. Legitimate expectations
4.1.2.8. Compatibility of the Sardinian tariff as regional aid
4.2.
Observations submitted by third parties
4.2.1.
Case C 38/A/04
4.2.2.
Case C 36/B/06
5.
OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY ITALY
5.1.
Case C 38/A/04
5.1.1.
The tariff addresses a market failure
5.1.2.
The tariff is not State aid
5.1.3.
No State resources
5.1.4.
No impact on trade
5.1.5.
The Sardinian tariff is compatible with regional aid rules
5.2.
Case C 36/B/06
5.2.1.
No State aid
5.2.2.
No advantage, no State resources and no impact on trade
5.2.3.
The measure is not unlawful
5.2.4.
The tariff is justified
6.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
6.1.
Temporal and material scope of the investigation
6.1.1.
The 2004 proceedings (case C 38/A/04)
6.1.2.
The 2006 proceedings (case C 36/B/06)
6.1.3.
Conclusions on the scope of the decision
6.2.
Existence of State aid pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
6.2.1.
Existence of an advantage
6.2.2.
Selectivity
6.2.3.
State resources and imputability to the State
6.2.4.
Impact on trade and distortion of competition
6.2.5.
Conclusions on the existence of aid
6.3.
Classification of the new measure as new or existing aid
6.3.1.
Temporal scope of the Alumix decision
6.3.2.
Change in circumstances affecting the validity of the Alumix decision
6.3.3.
Conclusions on the definition of the tariff as new aid
6.4.
Lawfulness of the aid
6.5.
Compatibility of the aid
6.5.1.
Compatibility with the guidelines on national regional aid (Sardinia)
6.5.1.1. The Sardinian electricity market in the Italian context
6.5.1.2. Contribution to regional development
6.5.1.3. Proportionality
6.5.1.4. Degressivity
6.5.1.5. Conclusions on the compatibility of the measure as regional aid for Sardinia
6.5.2.
Other considerations relevant to compatibility (Veneto and Sardinia)
6.5.3.
The virtual power plant proposal (Sardinia)
6.5.3.1. Description of the Italian VPP
6.5.3.2. Compatibility of the tariff on the basis of the VPP
6.5.4.
Conclusions on the compatibility of the aid (Veneto and Sardinia)
6.6.
Recovery
6.6.1.
Legitimate expectations and other general principles of Community law which may prevent recovery
6.6.1.1. Legitimate expectations
6.6.1.2. Other general principles of Community law
6.6.2.
Quantification of the amounts to be recovered
7.
CONCLUSION
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5