This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/294/47
Case C-390/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
Case C-390/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
Case C-390/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
OB C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 27–27
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
2.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 294/27 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
(Case C-390/06)
(2006/C 294/47)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale ordinario di Roma
Parties to the main proceedings
Claimant: Nuova Agricast srl
Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive
Question referred
‘The question concerns the validity of the EU Commission's decision of 12 July 2000, notified to the Italian Government by letter referenced SG(2000)D/105754 of 2 August 2000, solely with reference to the transitional provision which provides for exceptional derogation from the principle of “necessary aid” — on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question — only for applications “made on the occasion of the last invitation to apply for support measures, organised on the basis of the preceding scheme and approved by the Commission until 31 December 1999, which were considered eligible for aid but were not cleared because insufficient financial resources were allocated to that invitation”, with the consequent unjustified passing-over — in breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was based pursuant to Article 253 EC — of applications made in connection with earlier invitations, which had not been supported because of a lack of funds and which were waiting to be included automatically in the next invitation or to be revised and resubmitted in the first “appropriate” invitation established under the new scheme’.