Action brought on 30 May 2011 - Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

(Case T-273/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyons, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 6483 Final of 29 September 2010 concerning the aid scheme C 4/09 (ex N 679/97) implemented by France to promote radio broadcasting (OJ 2011 L 61, p. 22);

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-333/07 Régie Networks [2008] ECR I-10807, in so far as the Commission did not comply with the relevant grounds and the operative part of judgment, by disregarding, in re-examining the compatibility of the aid scheme at issue, the method by which that aid scheme was financed and which the Court had mentioned to it.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging an error of law relating to the grounds of the contested decision in so far as the Commission artificially disassociated the unlawful method of financing from the aid scheme concerned, although it had declared in its decision to initiate the inter partes procedure of 16 September 2009 that the unlawful nature of the charge has the consequence that that aid scheme in its entirety is essentially and directly unlawful.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of the Treaty relating to the freedom to provide services in so far as the unlawful nature of the charge financing that aid scheme is established by reason of the fact that the detailed rules for the territorial assessment are contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services. The applicants submit that the partial reimbursement, ordered by the contested decision, cannot in any event alter the nature of the aid scheme in question and retroactively make it consistent with the Treaty.

4.    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision did not provide an adequate statement of reasons in so far as the Commission did not explain in detail how the conditions set out in the decision were capable of rendering the scheme compatible despite the finding that the method of financing was incompatible.

5.    Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the applicants submit that by choosing to declare the aid scheme compatible by imposing retroactive conditions rather than purely and simply finding it incompatible, while exempting the French Republic from recovering the aid from the beneficiaries, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality.

6.    Sixth plea in law alleging abuse of process and infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in so far as the Commission, at the end of the formal investigation procedure, adopted a conditional decision, even though not only had its doubts as regards the compatibility of the aid scheme not been removed but it was also satisfied that the scheme was incompatible. It infringed the provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 and therefore committed an abuse of process.

____________