Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 12 June 1991

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 OJ 1990 L 118, p. 42.

3 Contested decision, Part I, first paragraph.

4 See Iulian Government telex of 21 November 1986, annex II of the statement of defence.

5 An abbreviation for Ente Participazioni e Finanziamenti Industrie Manifatturiere.

6 Contested decision, Part I, second and third paragraphs.

7 An abbreviauon for Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica.

8 Contested decision, Part I, eighth paragraph; see also Annex I to the application.

9 Contested decision, Part II, second paragraph.

10 Contested decision. Part II, third paragraph.

11 Contested decision, Part IV, second paragraph.

12 Contested decision, Part IV, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs.

13 First paragraph of Article 1 of the contested decision.

14 Second paragraph of Article 1 of the contested decision.

15 Third paragraph of Article 1 of the contested decision.

16 In 1988 Alumínia recorded a profit, whilst Comsal halved its losses as compared with those suffered in 1987. See also footnote 21 infra.

17 Application, pages 7 and 8.

18 Judgment in Case 234/84 Belgium v Commission [19861 ECR 2263 (Meuraļ, paragraph 14; see also the recent judgment in Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-959 CTubemeuse'l paragraph 29.

19 See also my Opinion of 10 January 1991 in that case, paragraphs 11 and 12 [(1991] ECR I-1616).

20 See for example the judgments already cited in Mettra, paragraphs 15 and 16, Tubemeuse, paragraphs 26 (and 29), and Alfa Romeo, paragraphs 19 and 20, and the judgments in Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307 (Boussacļ, paragraphs 39 and 40, and Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433 (ENI-Lanerossi), I-1433 paragraphs 20 and 24.

21 Contested decision, Part IV, fourth paragraph.

22 It appears from the contested decision that at the time of the procedure under Article 93(2), that is, at the beginning of 1989 (see infra paragraph 12), the Iulian Government had informed the Commission that it was expected that in 1988 the State aluminium industry, with the exception of Comsal, would show a profit of LIT 3000 million, whereas the result expected for Comsal for that year would be a loss of LIT 4600 million (contested decision, Pan III, second paragraph). In its application and reply the Iulian Government confined itself to mentioning that in 1988 the Sute aluminium industry as a whole, including Alumínia, made a profit and that Comsal more than halved its toss (application p. 16 and reply p. 14). Other or more precise information about the recovery of the two underukings is lacking. The Italian Government stated at the hearing that in 1988 Alumínia had made a profit of 7 to 8000 million.

23 In the Alfa Romeo case too, in assessing aid granted in 1985 and 1986, the Court did not uke into account the remarkable recovery of the motor-vehicle industry in subsequent years.

24 See inter alia the contested decision, Part IV, third paragraph, and the Commission Communication to the Member Sutes of 17 September 1984, Bulletin of the EC, No 9-1984, point 2.5.1.

25 See for example the Meura judgment, paragraph 14, already cited in footnote 17.

26 Contested decision, Part III, second paragraph.

27 Nor did it appear subsequently that the recovery announced by the Italian Government did in fact lead in subsequent years to a lastinge recovery of Alumínia and Comsal. As already stated in footnote 21, the Iulian Government stated at the hearing that in 1988 Alumínia made LIT 8000 million profit, which is not impressive when it is realized that in the period 1982-87 that undertaking made a loss of almost 1000000 million and a loss of 98300 million for 1987 alone.

28 Eleventh paragraph of the decision of 17 December 1986, Annex II to the defence.

29 See for example the Meura judgment, paragraph 16, already cited in footnote 17.

30 See the judgment in Case 47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 487, paragraph 7.