 I will try to give you an overview of the Italian from the Italian perspective of the recovery procedure of state heads in Thailand. I will focus on the recovery procedure because I will say before, and for close to the entire structure of the Italian litigation tax litigation, we do not have a case of a charge that is competent for the legitimacy of a measure granting tax state head. I give you some ideas about our tax litigation structures. We used to think that the tax litigation could arise just to oppose to appeal an act of the administration. That's the main idea. Unless you have a decision of the revenue, you cannot vote a court in Italy. You need a decision of the court. You cannot vote the court immediately, directly. You need a decision of the administration. You need a decision. What's the effect of this structure? Very strong principle. We have a list of the decisions that could be directly appealed. We have a list, close to the list of the decisions of tax administration that could be appealed. We have an assessment of compulsory collection and so on. We have a close list of this. Due to this structure, we have no experience in Italy of direct access. We cannot have experience of direct access to a tax charge asking him to declare a measure that grants an aid to someone else. We cannot have legal, we cannot have. It is impossible. That's why I was saying for the strudel position of the Netherlands, the General Netherlands Court is interesting from this point of view. As part of the order, there is no legal scholar that proposes this. But a civil action could be initiated for a competitor in order to have a declaration from a civil judge of the measure granting an aid to a competitor. But by now in Italy we do not have, we didn't have this kind of measure. So the Italian charge, as known, dealing with the Italian tax charge, as known, dealing with the recovery act, the decision of recovery. One of the unlawfulness of the measure, national measure, is clear. It has been set by EC decision. And this is the decision of recovery. That's the main frame. That's why I call this the recovery procedure. Because we do not have any experience of declaration of unlawfulness of a single measure in Italy. Of physical state aid. At least I refer to the tax state aid, not the general state aid. Of course. As known, that's the general rule. All we know about that, I just have some light for that. That's the main frame. As general rule, the state has the duty to recover the state aid, where the European Commission issues a recovery decision. It is up to the European Commission to issue a recovery decision. It is up to the state to reinforce this decision and to recover. What happened in the state is not doing that? The Italian state doesn't recover it. Yeah, there is an infringement procedure. Yeah, there is an infringement procedure. Yeah, there is an infringement procedure started by the European Commission against the state. So as a competitor, I have to write a letter to the commissioners, playing with the state. Yeah, yeah, you better obey them. But after the overall decision, yes. Of course, the European Commission would say the state is not recovering the amount yet. Yes, of course. In this case, the single charge will be competent, because the lack of recovery could be suited as damage. I have a message for you under the recovery program. I know you have a single charge. Yes, a single charge. Up in the arm with no contractual damages, but no extra contractual damages. Yeah, serial damages. Yeah, okay. The procedures of recovery today, as like said before me, much better than me, depends on the national law. And yes, it complies with the European law and principle. To principle, principle of effectiveness and equality. Equivalence. We're not about that. I would like to give you our position in April 8th before 2012. Before 2012, there was not a clear process for the recovery of state ads in Italy. We didn't have a clear process. We didn't know how to recover. We just knew the state ads had duty to recover. But there was no procedure to recover this amount. And so, from time to time, state, our legislator, our parliament, to comply with easy decisions for recovery, passed a specific law, a specific measure, with reference to specific decisions, and with reference with specific internal measures, granting unlawful and compatible data. We had the law for recovering law for state ads running to the surgical sector. The state for the law for recovery and the law in running to the public home had come. Each decision we tend to introduce a law, and not a state. The state is that we contain the person's rules of recovery. That's the main situation in Italy. And that was, to some extent, in my experience, merged with this aspect. That was, in my opinion, to some bias or cultural bias of Italian legal tradition. We used to consider an administrative law, that the law that the administration cannot take a decision without law. Without the law, you cannot recover. To recover is an administrative power. And you cannot exercise this administrative power without a law. Without a law that authorizes the specific example. With law you mean only written law? Written law. Written in Italian law. Written in Italian law. That would be in accordance to European rules. That is a hierarchy. European decisions and frame is a higher level. You're right. In fact, that's due to the lack of European insistence that we still apply this. Well, we have to continue. We have civil law countries with very deep legal tradition. Written in Roman law. And we have administrative law, imported administrative law. Partly from France, partly from Germany. But this rule of law principle that the administration cannot act beyond the power conferred by the law. And to act, it needs a law. The administration needs a law to act. It's up to now very affluent by the Dutch courts. It is not so strange. But it should be corrected by considering the law, European law. Also European law and European decisions. The administration cannot act unless there is a law that should be intended as also European law. That's correct. But due to the rule of law, due to the presence of this deep-rooted principle in our tradition, we, for a long time, we tend to act as I described here. Each state has to be recovered as a single state to be recovered in that state. And that also, of course, that was very much the case in tax state aid. Because to a certain point of view, the tax state aid is not granted by the administration. The tax state aid is granted by the law. So to recover tax state aid, to recover tax, you need a law that allows you to do that. Because it is not the local administration that needs to do that, that's granting an aid. But this is the law, the general law, that grants an aid. And so to recover the aid, to recover this aid, we used to think in a way that we need a law, we need a specific law that allows us to tax to a certain state that has been exempted before. That's the rational behind. I'm going to give you, I think I'm going to give you the details of a single specific comma of our rules. We are very complex, but I'm going to give you the rational behind our system, and outbooks to general standards, to general frame. But I think it would be useful for you not to do a single specific act. In the lack of general standards, some principles, some ideas emerged in Italian criminal tradition. The first main idea is, who is in charge to recover the... The first idea is the authority that grants the aid, who is still in charge to recover it by issuing an order of payment. The rational behind is the same authority that has the power to grant, has the power to recover, grant aid, has the power to recover. It works, but it works for a certain grant by a mystery authority. One of the authority for taxing tax ads, one who is not the authority that grants the aid of the law, that grants the aid, but it didn't work this way. So, the other general rule that we apply in the way is most, the civil code rules were debatable. In lack of specific principles, we didn't agree with the general civil code rules, but with major exception, interest calculation, time limitation. As I said before, we have the general rule that forbids the general principle according to which the combined interest is forbidden. It's a legacy from the Roman law. The interest on the interest is forbidden in England as normal. We cannot consider the interest on the interest of debt for interest, but for civil obligation. But for state debt, we consider that the combined interest, the combined method to compute the interest was applicable in lack of specific principles. So, the time limitation. We consider five years, but the general code, the general civil code is not clear in this. In general code, the time limitation is ten years or so, ten years to be called. Major exceptions for the... Major exceptions in order to informally comply with the European rule, to give you discretion. But the legal framework was the civil code. It was a civil obligation, civil debt with major exception of trying to comply with the European law. That was the legal framework. Third, third main rule that we apply, the collection was made according to a procedure set forth for the great of the public policy. We had, and we have, in early, a specific procedure to collect, to enforce the credit of public bodies that is used for taxes. And we used this for recovering of state debt. Taxes, state debt, and also the older state debt. Not just tax state debt. We used this. In the lack of general rules. Okay, that's the main principle we used to apply before 2012 to the recovery of the state debt. Of course, it is clear that, as I said before, the goal for tax state debt, we used to pass a law to the recovery of debt of the specific tax state debt. And this law contained also some information, some details on the procedure to recover. Because you do not understand the case that the law does not pass parliament, the law of which you say that it is necessary to enforce recovery. Because when such a law should not pass parliament, it is stated as well. Yeah, that's why we forced by the European Commission to introduce general procedures. Not specifically on the case like this. Okay, practice approach. That was a point from the Italian point of view. But the problem that we... I think, I did not write it then, but I think we didn't pass it away. Also because the state debt has the sum to be recovered as had and has very different nature. And so we are a little bit reluctant to recognize a general recovery procedure for some that has different nature. That's why the general procedure in Italy causes much more issues than we think. Now we will see this. Okay, in 2012, the parliament passed a law reorganizing, introducing, reorganizing the law, the recovery procedure. And introducing the one main general recovery procedure for each every state debt. The recovery of every state debt. It is important to say that this law is not meant to settle this problem. It was a general law. It was the financial act for 2013. But due to the oppression of the European Commission, we passed this reform, this important reform in this moment. But this law is the financial act of Italy. And you look the days, the eve of Christmas when it has been passed. Because with us it is, but a very big financial act. And in this act there are three or four articles that deal with this problem. In fact, a general recovery procedure. Of course, the law cannot be discussed in need. So that's the solution that the Italian parliament found. Consider that we have to online the European law. Just make reference to the European law. So the first passage of the law is, for the recovery of state debt, the European law should be fought. That is obvious, but for us it is not. Because the reference is domestic. We all know the supremacy of the law, particularly in the field of competition law. We all know about that. But in the light of the law, lots of time to draft a law to introduce some principles. The shortest way, the way to comply with the European law is to affirm it. The law considers that we should comply with the European law. All European law. And that's the beginning of the act of 48. You have to question the question of the European law. So what? European Commission's question of the act. It's okay, I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. We all agree about that. We all agree. And you probably have a feeling that the process, your generation will be formed. We all agree about that. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. Okay. Perhaps, perhaps the reference is a legacy of the rule of law in our history law, as I said. I just need a law to authorize the administration. In this case, the authorization was very broad. I authorize you to follow the European rule to recover the amount to be recovered last month, we say that. That's why I tend to believe that this, the rule of law is the rationale that stands out to the Italian form of recovery, the proper recovery, the amount. Anyhow, I'll go straight. I just give you this is the translation, the translation I did from the paragraph 2 of the article 4j of difficulty procedures. This proper, this article... Those aren't this... I don't know. There's not a case you have. Sorry. Authority in charge of recovery decision. Which is the authority in charge? I liked it. The minister responsible for the matter. It implies that the persons required to pay the act to be recovered as it wishes the amounts due and that aligns the terms and conditions of payments. It's a short period. Yes. The pre-empty, the competent minister shall be responsible against these two responses. It could seem clear to the minister in charge of the matter. Minister, the pre-empty, that act that is the decision to be internal decision to be recovered. It is not clear at all. And I have to explain. I have to explain why. A global index matters as you can imagine by now. The finance minister? The finance minister... The finance minister... We are... Remember, you are in Italy. It is very complex country. Special minister of taxation. Yes, yes, yes, yes. But the minister of finance and economy... The ministry of economy and finance is not in charge to tax a single taxpayer. Okay, but which minister is in charge of the application of taxes? Not a minister, but an agency. In London, I believe it. And the agency is under... The agency... Who is the minister of finance? The minister of finance. Yeah, for tax law, for tax. But we have also taxation that is... And for it, set for by national law, but collected by local authorities. Yeah. That's for national taxes, if it is okay. You're right, if it is. But for local, it is not easy at all. Any other... This article is quite clear. The minister... The minister got this responsible for the matter. And this decree should contain three elements, at least two persons. Providing to convey the benefits of... Second, the amount due, the interest included. And third, the total interconditional pay. Remember, always according to European. So... Yeah. The decision in the process, is it... We will have hearing of the person who will pay... Of his employers, of the... That's a point. That's a point. In general state tax, I don't think so. In tax state tax, state that, it could be. Because we are trying to introduce the right to be heard in tax matters, in tax proceedings. So, according to the tax law, according to the general tax law, we are keen to introduce the right to be heard of tax payer. So, the first contact between the tax payer or the beneficiary that should be repaid the amount, is an element of the legality of the procedures. I think so. I'm not sure, I have no case law on that. There is no precise... There is no precise regulation, but I think so in tax state. As it is... I'm going to... So that means, a minister of courts can have... A look to... Yeah, you're right. That's the solution. That's the solution. I don't want to anticipate... But that's the solution forward by law. But it's a very strange solution and some scholars doubt about the constitutionality of this solution. But we arrive to this... That's the point. In practical terms, that's the reason why I mentioned that too much is very short. You have to analyze the case to make a calculation... It's very short. Above all, for tax state. It's very, very short. What's the problem with those debates? Because there's a history... Yes, yes. Above all, for tax state heads that are granted by law, there are lots of tax payers that benefited from this. And so, lots of people from practical opinion are doubtful about this. And being honest, knowing the bureaucracy, the canalizing of this, I think it is not easy to stay with that line of two months. I think so. But, of course, from practical point of view... And what happens if you can't or she can't adopt it in two months? Yeah. Is it that easy? Sorry. No, no, no. Once again, I have one for you. I don't know. But I can give you my opinion. The reason of this law. I can give you my opinion from the... Our new definition of the problem is this, or is that line is strict, or it is just a set of suggestions indicative of that. In Italy, in Italy... The rule of order. What? Okay, yeah. But to a literal point of view, it is an illegal decree of recovery. Because if you think in European legal terms, the principle of the commission should adopt a decision on recovery also within reasonable time. Reasonable time. Not strict time. But the courts have held, the European court has held, where the commission has taken an unreasonable time, it becomes illegal. Yeah, yeah. Because you have infringed the principle of... That's why... Yeah. I came to think that according... If I give you my opinion, the Italian judge could interpret this term as a strict term, but it should consider it in light of the complexity of the entire proceedings. And so, as known for easy procedure, this term should be followed, it should be respected. In case of not so easy procedure to be penalized and to be organized in the recovery, I think that this term could be enlarged. Yeah. So that was that why I... It's not clear at all. It seems clear that it was not clear. Because every weapon by public authority is different from the state. And so, we need part of the treaty in the article. In cases where the commandant authority is different from the state, the mission referred to in paragraph 2 shall be taken by the agent of the autonomous province, or the commandant of the law authority. The activities referred to in paragraph 1 shall be carried out to find the concessional in order to collect the revenue of the local authority conservative. So, it is for the local authority, not the ministry, to recall. I just remind you that we, in Italy, are a republic with the regional form of state. Each region, in Italy, and each region has a normative power, as you can expect. The regional law in Italy is law, like state law. It refers to the components. There are some matter, some field in which there is components of the region and state. And in this matter, in this field, there could be a grant by the law. And all of our... We are talking about a special region. We have some special regions. We are going to know about others. Much more. And their state is approved with the constitution. Our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, our people, the regional aids are granted by the... yeah, important. And much more of the regional aids are granted by this. Yeah, much more. Third, paragraph one. In Italy, as the IO's, as the IO means income, cooperation, shall collect the amount due as a result of The following decision referred to an article 4 of the Regulation of Council 6.5.9.1999. Adopted after all the date of entry into force of this law. Irrespective of the form of the aid and of the person who granted it. What is Epidalia? Epidalia is a public-organized company owned by the Italian revenue but separated company in charge to collect and enforce the public debt, the public credit and debt. But there is a problem. Up to now it doesn't exist. Epidalia does not exist. There are so many shares. I don't know. Is it going very good? Yes. Of course. It doesn't exist. It has been incorporated. It says a joke but it's true. It has been incorporated in the net in the net and revenue. That's some of the issues. I'm going to illustrate these issues. A snowman Epidalia collects sums according to the stages of collection, possibly enforcing tax related sums. Shall we consider that the reference to Epidalia is important from the Italian point of view because it is a reference not just to Epidalia, to a company. But it is a reference to a set of rules of procedure. But it is a set of rules for enforce the tax credit of the revenue. We have civil enforcement of civil credit enforcement and tax credit enforcement. And the reference made in law by Epidalia is to Epidalia as important from the Italian point of view because it is a clear reference to this set of rules. To recover the state debt, we apply the rule we use to apply for recovering of tax claim. A perspective of the nature of the site. Also for contract, for guarantees to be recovered, we use the set of rules we have for the collection of tax revenue. To enforce the collection of tax revenue. This is important from the Italian point of view. I go. So now I try to give you a number of rate of the work flow of the process of the recovery of state debt. European Commission recovery decision functions to fulfill the duty to recover of the debts. National Minister of the Cree, of the Global Authority of the Cree, has sustained the benefits of demand and the way to collect the sum. So excuse me, we don't need any more new law. See, debt is not legal. You don't. No, no, no. In fact, we don't need any more after new procedure. The Cree, no, no, no. That's not it. We have a general policy of law. We just need to make the Cree. And we need to collect. Yeah. The Italian sphere, no longer exists, Italian revenue, now up to now, acts of collection. Collect, possibly enforced, the sum from the debt. That's the main work flow of the recovery of the Italian prosecutors. As I advance the programs, I go to the... The law set for the competent judge for the litigation on the recovery cost. Competence for litigation of the cause of the recovery act is act I mean, decisions, not act legal, nobody backed. It's attributed to the deterministic judge. To Bunal and Mr. Di, Mr. Giunani. It is an exclusive competence, irrespective of the nature of the state act. Providential, benefits, tax exemption, guarantees on the free, contract disproportionate, irrespective of the nature. The sum to be recovered, the litigation on the sum to be recovered, is attributed to the attorney of the judge. Each kind of state act recovered. Included that of providential state acts. That's the point of the law. That's the point because up to 2012, we strongly believed that the charge competent for the recovery is the charge according to the nature of the sum to be recovered. For recovery of the tax exemption, we used to think that the tax charge was constant. To recover your providential relief, legal exemption, we used to think that the civil providential specialized judge. Now, the law, the charge for the improvement, and attributed it to one set, one judge, the administrative judge. There is a rationale behind it. The rationale is this. The national act that starts the whole procedure is a high-level ministry, high-level administrative act. So the charge that should be valet, that should valet this act is an administrative act. Please. Suppose the minister doesn't adopt the decree at all. So there is a clear decision from the commission, but for some reason the minister does nothing. Is it still possible in Italian law for a competitor to go to the civil court and argue on the basis that Article 108 has direct effect that should be for tax case law, for tax case, tax case, no. It could be, it would be a very good solution. But up to now, no, the answer is no, up to now. It's been tried and forbidden? We don't know, and I'm keen to think the civil judge will do this mess. Because civil judge will say this is a compliance of tax charge. And to go to the tax charge, you cannot go directly because we need an act to... Yes, you are for it. That's a good reason. That's a point. That's a point. In theory, a competitor, a civil minister, we did not experience this up to now. But in theory, that's the solution that some score proposes, some score proposes. But the competitor will do the comparison and say no more. Is there any more way to do that? Yeah. Maybe this is a new act. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, you can. That's the solution. The solution may be because of the damage. The damage? No, you're right. You're right. If not the damage, at least, you as a minister, as the duty. And if you cannot exercise your duty, you are acting against me. You say that no, it's good to see the competence of the minister of duty in the process of the decision in terms of competence in tax matters. Do they have specialized policies? No, we do not have administrative jobs specialized in tax matters. We have specialized jobs, different tax jobs. They are... In this room there are some tax specialized jobs, administrative jobs. We have different jobs. Other? I would like to assume that confidence is also stated in the lack of time for the subject that comes with this... The room that is... The law states that it is attributed to the... to the... An exclusive way. In the situation that my colleague said that you want to assume the minister in order that he conforms to his duty in a special way. That's a good point. I think it is in the exclusive administration. Yes, I think it is also in the... No, not the... Because it is for the... Negative exercise of... Do not exercise... That would be an administrative court anyway. Anyway, yeah. And the way you have to... So you have to ask for exercise and power, then you have to assume the minister in order to compel it to exercise the power to recover. Before a judge, of course. That's a state that you cannot go immediately. You ask formally the minister to act in recovery to the competitor. And then if the minister is silent, you assume the minister, again, at the minister of court and at the minister of court in order to minister to issue the decree and collect the... recover the... I understand you mean, at the minister of court you call the attack of making that decree itself and you have to... No, no, no. No, no, it is not confidence. It is not confidence. In the worst-case scenario it is... the administrative judge has the power to appoint a... a functioner and giving the power to... to complete the amount and to issue the decree. Of the branch. Okay. In the worst-case scenario. I would love for you to think about how many times... Not so much time, because I didn't write to you that the administrative judge the exclusive competence is attributed to the administrative judge and the law I didn't write it, but the law stated that for... said for an application of a very speedy, speedy procedure speedy procedure for this I didn't write it, but... I believe, yeah. So it's like an expedited... expedited procedure. Okay. Which is the attitude of the national judicial control? I know. No, no, no, no. Okay, remember this. Remember this. Lots of persons in Italy lots of persons in Italy state, believe that the national judge quote said for the legitimacy of the national judges but I spoke to national judge, the national judge just the legitimacy of their court not of the nation. Clearly. National judge cannot national judge cannot control whether or not the measure is compatible or unlawful. Could Europeans say that? The EC, European Commission, has in charge of that. Any other national judge just to control one of the recovery procedures in line with European and national law she also made a set case of the other one the role of national judge to control the computing the amount the beneficiaries and so on. That's very clear. Not so clear but always always there at least in charge. They granted a final decision for the payment of a night and that leads to the surgical in the wild of the national renovation C-M-E C-M-E C-M-E C-M-E C-M-E C-M-E C-M-E C-M-E there's not the key is very big the room to copies they added lots of very big factory And they are involved also in some scandals for environmental pollution and so on. Anyway, in light of the national litigation, we see that started the investigation of the measure and eventually declared it unlawful. Consequently, we see issue also of the recordings. This amount should be recorded. So we have a formal contrast. From one side, an old, fine, binational judge, Bessie McCartney, had ordered the bailout of this son to the two kids. On the other side, the decision by the European Commission ordered the recovery or not bailed his son. That was very important. That was a very, we used to say, formal contrast. The ECJ cannot leave the boy to decide on this point. After the kidney, always the ECJ aborder gave us a clear ground decision on this point, on this context. In the kidney case, the court ECJ stated that the national administration issued the recovery order and the kidney appeal. The national judge, in terms of the recovery delivery and the passing of the decision, should the recovery decision prevail on the national fine of the season? As we know, the ECJ has the presence of the European Commission decision. In front of the rest of the court, ECJ stated, no, I don't care. I don't care about your rest of the court. I think this is very important, from the Italian view, from the Italian legal conviction. It was very revolutionary, judge, because to me, of rest of the court, is to say, rest of the court, you know, we always say, we, all in Italy, studied the gomolo, proveritate adiato. Rest of the court, rest of the court is the truth. Actually, on the law process, granted, that is... Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, yeah, but the problem is, we used to say... It is our relation. The value of... Yes. Yes, it is an easier to do. The value of the law and the law. Yeah, yeah, you're right. But you used to say that the certainty that granted by this, we got the principle, certainty. When you have final decision, you should buy a judge. Yes. That is the legal truth. Obviously, this opinion, in case the judge has said, has to be paid, has nothing to be said about possibility that we recommend. Yes, but the... Yeah, yeah, so we pay in your call... Realization. Yeah, yes, but we pay in your call immediately. Legalization. Legalization. Legalization. No. No, yes, it means pure nonsense. It's nonsense. No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, it could be, though, it could actually be. Do you ever think that ways are strictly that the use of the referee in the court can be so hard and so... No, it will be too easy, and that's the situation. So you pay in the court, right? The name of it is European. And so European will immediately be the problem. That's what it is. That's what it is. You are thinking about national law. That's what it was raised you to have for national law. Of course, that's because the national law in the nationalist family is the principle of European law. But the important is... Yeah, that's a good solution. We're a little bit fridgey about this issue. But the important thing is, I mean, from a leukemia case. In my, I'm short, I promise. And my point of view, from my point of view, the most important of leukemia case was that E.C.J. justified this solution, that is the prevalence, the supremacy of European law, saying that in the competition model, and say that it's part of competition law, the national authorities are still not competent. That's one of the main... What's the main argument? We cannot accept the rest of the data in national law when the national law, the national judge, the national authorities, the men say, as no part of competition law. No definite part of competition law. That's the main argument. The leukemia case is very important from the Italian point of view, because it reduced very much the room for competence for national authorities. I remind, what I reminded is obvious. The national judge, the national authorities are not in charge, they are not competent to assume, to declare the law of a nation compared to the state act. They are not. It just has to control the economic philosophy. It's up to the European Commission to investigate and to control. And in leukemia, that was the main question. Quote affirmatively, why I have to stop in front of national decision if the national authorities assume no definite power in this field, competence law, competition law. And so leukemia narrowed, narrowed to move from national law. So there is no confidence from national law, from national judge in the recovery of the best. It should be considered that in the future that the law in medicine case, that the ACJ stated, no, it is not the true definition of national charge as in no way in the state act. And what's the role of national charge in state act? I consider that the role of national charge is complementary to the role of the European Commission. What does it mean? The main confidence in the qualification of the national state act is on the EC. The national charge should act as to complement the action of the European Commission. I explain. I explain. I better explain. The national charge is confident to control the correctness of the amount to be recovered. The national charge should even control the correctness of the identification of the beneficiary of the state act. The national charge should control the lowering of the entire property of your company. Just be a company. It's not so important. But what you say now is supposed that there is a decision of the European Commission on recovery. What you said now is in the context of article 100 and 100. But there is also article 100 in it. And in that context of the third article there may be a situation that there is not yet a decision of the European Commission. In this case, the role of the national charge may be different. In this case, the national charge could assume an interim measure to correct the correct application of the European Commission. That's clear. But even where there is a final decision from the European Commission, there is a role. And this role depends on the context of the European Commission. And minus that case is very important case for me. It's very important case to this point. Briefly, Italy rendered an act to the purchaser of the rest of the contract. For the purchaser of the rest of the contract. This measure was deemed as a lawful state act because it granted an advantage in the market of the digital broadcasting to the terrestrial operator compared to the satellite digital broadcasting operators. We had two main operators on the broadcasting. One operating on satellite broadcasting and the other one on terrestrial broadcasting. Of course, this act would be the paper of the terrestrial. What was it? The rest of the contract. The rest of the contract. We are happy with that. Once again, this is another requirement to certify the rules. They only decode it in terrestrial cable. What's important from our point of view is that it is the issue, the recovery decision. But in the decision, it did not identify the beneficiaries and the overall did not identify the correct amount to be decoded. This act is directly assigned to the purchasers of the contract. But undirectly, federated the operating market operator in the terrestrial measure. That's very complicated. Very, very, very complicated. Very complicated to identify the correct amount. With the beneficiary and how much does it in terms of competition advantage, that was very complex. It was exchange of letters, informal letters from the Italian government and the European Commission that agreed in the end eventually agreed on the method of computing. But it was a very complex economic point of view. Very complex way method to compute the advantage of single... Do you have to construct a counterfactual if there are no books? Yeah. That's the position of Italy. Italy assumed that in the prices in the interest of broadcasting market was the beneficiary to the recovery, to be recovered. Italy initially agreed on a method to compute the amount of exchange of informal letters. That's it. The major company in broadcasting and the mission owned by Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, our former prime minister. That was very important point of view. In this case, whether we see the recovery decision that does not contain the beneficiary is for the national charge to identify the beneficiary or control the community by the national administration compute the proper amount to be recovered. It is not so clear, but in the end, that's the end. There is this J as the main company but the national charge have to complete and complement the work of the English. That's my opinion. Seems to me an easy way to give here from the Italian perspective.