Action brought on 9 July 2008 - Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission

(Case T-267/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais (represented by: M. Cliquennois and F. Cavedon, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision C (2008) 1089 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 April 2008, concerning State Aid No C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007) implemented by France in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA;

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision C (2008) 1089 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 April 2008 by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the State aid granted by the applicant and the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA in the form of advances repayable at an annual rate of interest of 4.08% corresponding to the Community reference rate applicable when the loan was granted. The Commission considered that, taking into account its financial standing, Arbel Fauvet Rail SA would not have been able to obtain funds on such favourable terms in the financial market.

The applicant claims first that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and disregarded its obligation to state reasons, inasmuch as it considered that the source of the funds was, in part, the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis and did not take account of the specific legal features of the Communauté d'agglomération which is a public institution of intercommunity cooperation endowed with administrative and budgetary autonomy in relation to the towns and communities which are members of it. The applicant considers that the aid granted is consequently not attributable to the State.

The applicant further claims that the Commission committed errors of assessment (i) by describing Arbel Fauvet Rail SA as a firm in difficulty and (ii) by considering that Arbel Fauvet Rail SA could not have obtained the operative rate of interest in normal market conditions.

The applicant claims in addition that the Commission did not conduct its examination of the case with the required diligence, inasmuch as it did not specify either the amount of the aid to be recovered, nor the value of the aid and it did not provide any evidence capable of justifying an increased interest rate to be applied to the repayable advances because of a situation of particular risk in relation to Arbel Fauvet Rail SA.

Lastly, the applicant relies on an infringement of the principle that both parties should have the right to be heard, since the applicant's views were not heard during the administrative procedure.

____________