It should also be noted that the specific programme was to have been carried out jointly by SpA and the local firm, Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of WAM SpA.

It should also be noted that the specific programme was to have been carried out jointly by SpA and the local firm, Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of WAM SpA.

Furthermore, it is evident from the documents annexed to the letter of 14 January 2004 that the programme in question should have been carried out in jointly by SpA and ‘ Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd’, a local firm wholly owned by WAM SpA.

Furthermore, it is evident from the documents annexed to the letter of 14 January 2004 that the programme in question should have been carried out in jointly by SpA and ‘ Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd’, a local firm wholly owned by WAM SpA.

Furthermore, it transpires from the documents annexed to letter A/30263 of 14 January 2004 that the programme in question was to be carried out jointly by and ‘ Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai (Co Ltd’, which is a local firm wholly owned by WAM SpA.

Furthermore, as regards outward-looking competition among Community undertakings, it transpired that the programme financed by the second loan and designed to support business penetration in China, was to be jointly carried out by and ‘ Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd’, a local firm wholly owned by WAM SpA.

It should also be noted that the specific programme had to be carried out jointly by WAM SpA and the local firm, WAM Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of . This is evidence of the established presence of WAM SpA on the specific market in question.

At the time the formal investigation procedure initiated, the Commission not aware of any specific feature, such as aid intensity or eligible expenditure, of the aid granted to the ‘ group’ (as defined by the Italian authorities) in 2000, again in the form of a loan under Law No 394/81. No relevant information been submitted by the Italian authorities.

At the time the formal investigation procedure initiated, the Commission not aware of any specific feature, such as aid intensity or eligible expenditure, of the ‘ group’ aid (as the Italian authorities term it) granted in 2000, again in the form of a loan, under Law No 394/81.

At the time the formal investigation procedure initiated, the Commission not aware of any specific feature, such as aid intensity or eligible expenditure, of the ‘ group’ aid (as the Italian authorities term it) granted in 2000, again in the form of a loan, under Law No 394/81.

Evidence has provided that, at the moment of the granting of the first aid measure and of the introduction of the relevant application, , on the basis of its 1994 annual accounts, complied with the definition of medium-sized enterprise given at point 2.2 of the 1992 Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises [11], on the grounds that it had 163 employees, had an annual turnover of EUR 16,8 million and a balance-sheet total of EUR 20,1 million and owned by two undertakings, both fulfilling the definition of an SME.

Evidence has provided by the Italian Government that, at the time of the granting of the first (1995), fulfilled the requirements for it to be considered an SME within the meaning of Commission recommendation 96/280/EC [14].

The Commission would point out that the present decision is without prejudice to the compatibility of the national framework represented by Law No 394/81, which is the legal basis for the State aid granted to , with respect to which the Commission, in line with the case law of the Court of First Instance [39], did not find necessary in the present case to initiate proceedings.

Aid granted to in 1995

The Italian authorities confirmed the granting in 1995 of aid in the form of a loan amounting to ITL 2281450000 (some EUR 1,18 million) for for projects in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Joined Cases T-304/04 and T-316/04 Italian Republic and v Commission [2006] ECR II-64.

Thus, even if did not benefit from any other de minimis subsidy during the relevant three-year period, the de minimis threshold cannot apply to the aid in question.

Lastly, such a modification could have been made only to the first loan granted to as it applied to the funding in existence when it came into force, while the second loan had not as yet been granted to WAM SpA.

In the dust collectors market in particular, SpA a number of larger EU competitors with advanced technology and a well-developed commercial structure [8].

In the dust collectors market in particular, SpA a number of larger EU competitors with advanced technology and a well-developed commercial structure [8].