Commentary on Ordinance No. 864 of 2025: Illegal Subsidies and Aid in the European Context

Within the framework of Italian jurisprudence, Ordinance No. 864 of January 13, 2025 provides important clarifications regarding the issue of subsidies established by Law No. 350 of 2003 for natural disasters, particularly for the flood of 1994 in Piedmont. The ruling focuses on the distinction between aid granted and aid not yet disbursed, emphasizing the importance of the timeliness of challenging judicial measures.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

Law No. 350 of 2003, Article 4, paragraph 90, provides subsidies for natural disasters, but the European Commission established, with a decision on August 14, 2015, that Italy is exempt from the obligation to recover aid related to illegal regimes granted for disasters occurring more than ten years ago. However, the ruling clarifies that payments made in execution of a judge's order, if challenged promptly, do not fall within the notion of "aid granted." This aspect is crucial as it sets an important precedent in the management of aid and its recovery.

The Ruling's Maxim

Subsidies under Article 4, paragraph 90, Law No. 350 of 2003 - Decision of the EU Commission of August 14, 2015, in C 2015/5549 - Payment made in execution of a judge's order promptly challenged - Exemption from the obligation to recover aid related to illegal regimes - Exclusion. Regarding subsidies for the 1994 flood in Piedmont under Article 4, paragraph 90, Law No. 350 of 2003, the decision of the European Commission of August 14, 2015 exempts Italy from the obligation to recover aid related to illegal regimes granted for natural disasters occurring more than ten years prior to its decision, but those for which disbursement is still under judicial review do not fall within the notion of "aid granted," and thus, as in this case, payments made in execution of a judicial measure promptly challenged.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

This ordinance has significant practical implications for citizens and businesses involved in recovery proceedings for 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 subject to litigation. The ruling thus represents an important protection for those in similar situations, clarifying that the timely challenge of a measure can ensure the preservation of acquired rights.

Bianucci Law Firm