Available languages

Taxonomy tags

Info

References in this case

Share

Highlight in text

Go

20.11.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/15

Appeal brought on 5 August 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 21 May 2010 by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04 France and Others v Commission

(Case C-401/10 P)

()

2010/C 317/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, France Télécom SA, Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA, Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)

Form of order sought

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 May 2010 in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04, notified by fax to the Commission on 25 May 2010, in so far as it:

—

annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom; (1)

—

ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the French Republic and by France Télécom in Cases T-425/04 and T-444/04;

—

refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

—

reserve costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground, the Commission argues that the General Court’s judgment contains contradictory reasoning on a number of points. This is the case, inter alia, when the General Court considers in the judgment under appeal that the declarations, including the announcement of a shareholder loan on 4 December 2002, may be considered together in the determination of whether France Télécom enjoyed an advantage, whereas it considers that, for the purpose of determining the commitment of State resources, there was a significant lapse of time between the announcement of the shareholder loan and the various State declarations made earlier.

By its second ground, which comprises four parts, the Commission argues that the General Court disregarded Article 87(1) EC, read in conjunction with Article 230 EC, on a number of points. The General Court misapplied the concept of aid in requiring that there be a close nexus between the advantage and the commitment of State resources (first part), in refusing to recognise the commitment of State resources in the announcement and offer of a shareholder contract by the French State to France Télécom (second part) and in failing to apply the criterion of prudent private investor in order to determine whether or not France Télécom enjoyed an advantage (third part). The General Court, moreover, disregarded the discretion the Commission has when it carries out complex economic analyses and conducted a review of the appropriateness of the contested decision (fourth part).

By its third ground, the Commission argues that the General Court distorted the contested decision in holding that it should have contained a more detailed statement of reasons as to why there was a distinct advantage resulting from the offer of a line of credit of EUR 9 billion to France Télécom and by holding that there was a significant lapse of time between the declarations beginning in July 2002 and the announcement of a shareholder loan contract on 4 December 2002.

(1)  OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11.