Action brought on 7 November 2011 - Inaporc v Commission

(Case T-575/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Interprofession nationale porcine (Inaporc) (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, Y. Trifounovitch and C. Rexha, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Decision C(2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011, State aid NN 10/2010 - France - Tax to finance a national pig and pork producers council (not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union) in so far as it classifies (i) as State aid the action taken by INAPORC between 2004 and 2008 in relation to technical support, assistance with the production and marketing of quality products, research and development, as well as advertising, and (ii) the compulsory voluntary contributions used to finance that action as State resources forming an integral part of the State aid measures referred to above;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies principally on two pleas in law.

First plea in law: infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the statement of reasons for the contested decision is insufficient having regard to Article 296 TFEU, in that it does not enable the applicant to understand the reasons that led the Commission to consider the criteria established by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to State aid to be satisfied in this instance.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that, in the contested decision, the Commission:

classified as State resources the compulsory voluntary contributions levied by Inaporc, and the action which that professional association takes and finances using those contributions as action imputable to the State;

found that there was a selective economic advantage arising from the action taken by Inaporc for the benefit of undertakings engaged in production, processing and distribution in the pigmeat sector;

took the view that the action taken by Inaporc may result in distortion of competition imputable to the State aid.

____________