Brussels – A company in difficulty may not benefit from advantages provided to gas‑ and power‑intensive companies. This is what the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in its judgement concerning Acciaierie d’Italia (ADI), the company under special administration that manages the former Ilva site in Taranto, upholding the position taken by the Italian authorities. The ruling comes at a time of serious crisis, with the steelworks’ facilities set to shut down at the end of October and around 20,000 jobs at risk.
The matter stems from Italy’s refusal to include ADI on the lists of energy-intensive and gas-intensive companies for 2025. Consequently, ADI did not benefit from the financial incentives provided for this type of company. The refusal was justified by the company’s classification as an “undertaking in difficulty” under EU state aid rules, in part based on its placement under special administration and its insolvency.
The matter was referred to Luxembourg after the Italian administrative court, to which appeals had been lodged against the refusal, asked the Court to clarify whether it was compatible with EU law to exclude companies under special administration from aid intended for energy-intensive businesses.
The Court’s answer is in the affirmative. According to the European judges, the Commission chose to limit its own discretion when it drew up the guidelines on rescue and restructuring aid for firms in difficulty. Derogating from those rules would therefore risk infringing general principles of EU law, including equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations.
In the case of Italy, the legislation on energy aid has, according to the Court, merely brought itself into line with the European rules on State aid for climate, the environment and energy, which exclude from energy support undertakings considered to be “in difficulty” in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines.
And it is on this point that the judgment’s key clarification lies: a company subject to extraordinary administration is an “undertaking in difficulty” within the meaning of EU law, because that procedure presupposes a finding of insolvency. However, the national court will have to verify this condition in practice in the ADI case.
The fact that insolvency proceedings may also aim to restore a company’s profitability does not alter their classification under European State aid rules. The Court also stressed that energy aid must not be confused with rescue aid: these are instruments with different purposes and subject to different rules. The judgment does not, therefore, settle the national dispute. It will be for the Italian court to apply the principles established by the Court and to reach a decision.
However, this case forms part of a wider framework of public measures to support the Taranto steel industry. The European Commission has recently authorised a 390 million euro rescue loan for Acciaierie d’Italia, considering it proportionate to address the expected liquidity shortfall, limited to normal operating costs, particularly in light of the crisis affecting the European and global steel sectors.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
