Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — Fedecom v Commission
(Case T‑243/09)
State aid — Fruit and vegetable sector — ‘Contingency plans’ aimed at supporting the fruit and vegetable market in France — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Joint financing by a public body and by voluntary contributions from producer organisations — Arguments contrary to the facts submitted during the administrative proceedings — Operating aid — Legitimate expectation
1. State aid — Commission decision — Assessment of legality by reference to the information available at the time of adoption of the decision — Applicant having participated in the formal investigation procedure not able to rely, in support of his action, in factual elements not submitted during that procedure (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 13(1)) (see paras 39-44, 80, 82)
2. State aid — Concept — Aid from State resources (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 45-48)
3. State aid — Concept — Aid from State resources — Measures financed by both State contributions and voluntary contributions from professionals in a sector — Relevant criterion — Degree of intervention of the public authority in the definition of measures financed by professional contributions and their methods of financing (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 49-56, 60-61, 71, 76-77)
4. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Operating aid — Exclusion (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see para. 86)
5. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — State aid concerning products subject to a common organisation of the market — Prohibition — Aid favouring the exportation of national products to non-Member States — Not relevant (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see para. 87)
6. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions (see paras 90-91)
7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules under Article 88 EC — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — Protection — Conditions and limits — Inaction on the part of the Commission — No legitimate expectations — No exceptional circumstances (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 92-93, 95-96)
Re:
| APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by the French Republic. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Fédération de l’organisation économique fruits et légumes (Fedecom) to pay the costs. |