Commentary on Order No. 864 of 2025: Illegal Relief and Aid in the European Context

Within the scope of Italian jurisprudence, Order No. 864 of January 13, 2025, offers important clarifications regarding the issue of relief provided by Law No. 350 of 2003 for natural disasters, particularly for the 1994 flood in Piedmont. The ruling focuses on the distinction between aid granted and aid not yet disbursed, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals against judicial decisions.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

Law No. 350 of 2003, in Article 4, paragraph 90, provides for relief for natural disasters, but the European Commission established, by decision of August 14, 2015, that Italy is exempt from the obligation to recover aid relating to illegal schemes granted for disasters dating back more than ten years. However, the ruling clarifies that payments made in execution of a court order, if appealed in a timely manner, do not fall within the notion of "granted aid." This aspect is crucial as it establishes an important precedent in the management of aid and its recovery.

The Ruling's Headnote

Relief under art. 4, para. 90, l. no. 350 of 2003 - European Commission Decision of August 14, 2015, in C 2015/5549 - Payment made in execution of a court order timely appealed - Exemption from the obligation to recover aid relating to illegal schemes - Exclusion. Regarding relief for the 1994 flood in Piedmont under art. 4, para. 90, l. no. 350 of 2003, the European Commission's decision of August 14, 2015, exempts Italy from the obligation to recover aid relating to illegal schemes granted for natural disasters dating back more than ten years prior to its decision, but payments made in execution of a judicial measure timely appealed do not fall within the notion of "granted aid," as their disbursement is still sub judice, as in this case.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

This order has significant practical implications for citizens and businesses involved in proceedings for the recovery of aid. It is essential for interested parties to understand that payments made in execution of a judicial measure cannot be considered illegal aid if they are still the subject of litigation. The ruling therefore represents an important protection for those in similar situations, clarifying that timely appeal of a measure can ensure the preservation of acquired rights.