Action brought on 13 September 2007 - La Banque Postale v Commission

(Case T-345/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La Banque Postale (represented by: S. Hautbourg and J.-E. Skovron, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul in its entirety the contested decision on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC;

Order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, the provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier (Monetary and Financial Code) which reserve for three credit institutions - the applicant, the Caisses d'Epargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel - special rights for the distribution of the savings account books known as 'livret A' and 'livret bleu'.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed its right to a fair hearing during the procedure which led to the contested decision in that the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment on two reports provided to the Commission by the complainants and which, according to the applicant, transpired to form a fundamental part of the Commission's case.

Second, it claims that the Commission made numerous errors of law and of appraisal in holding that the distribution arrangements for the livret A constituted a restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in law by giving a very broad interpretation to the notion of 'restrictions' in the sense of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and to the circumstances in which those two principles may be relied upon. The applicant also submits that the Commission concluded, wrongly, that the special right makes establishment on the French market for bank savings more difficult and more costly.

Third, the applicant claims that the contested decision is tainted by errors of law and of appraisal in so far as the Commission held that the current arrangements for distribution of the livret A could not be justified under Article 86(2) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission made an error of law and several errors of appraisal in its definition of accessibility to banking services connected with the livret A as a service of general economic interest and in its analysis of whether the special right was necessary and proportionate in order to carry out the service of general economic interest of accessibility to banking services and of that relating to social housing.

According to its fourth plea in law, the applicant contends that the reasons given for the contested decision are contradictory and inadequate.

____________