Action brought on 17 December 2008 - M6 v Commission

(Case T-568/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Métropole Télévision SA (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: O. Freget and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 July 2008 in Case N 279/2008-France (Capital endowment for France Télévisions);

require the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure under the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applies for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008, by which the Commission had held State aid in the form of a capital endowment of EUR 150 million in favour of France Télévisions to be compatible with the common market. The applicant requests in that context the initiation of the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant raises three pleas concerning the lawfulness of the contested decision alleging:

a breach of the applicant's procedural rights, in so far as the Commission's assessment, and especially that relating to the direct causal link between the announcement of the President of the French Republic of 8 January 2008 concerning the abolition of commercial advertising on the channels of the France Télévisions group and the loss of income suffered by those channels, would create difficulties such as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) EC so that the competitors of the France Télévisions group could set out their position;

a failure of the Commission to provide adequate information concerning the cause of the loss of advertising revenue and intended use of the capital endowment granted to France Télévisions, in so far as the Commission did not verify with the required neutrality, impartiality and thoroughness the truth and reliability of the information which was communicated to it concerning the real causes of France Télévisions' advertising losses and the final use to which the sums paid by the French Republic to France Télévisions were to be put;

a failure to state grounds, in so far as the Commission (i) did not sufficiently justify the importance given in the contested decision to the effect of the presidential announcement of 8 January 2008 which referred to the abolition of advertising on the public channels, (ii) failed to take into consideration the influence, on advertising regulation, of the 'refocusing' of France Télévisions' activities towards those of a public service and (iii) did not take into consideration the responses of private operators, including the applicant.

____________