Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 April 2004 by Electricité de France (EDF) against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-156/04)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2004 by Electricité de France (EDF), established in Paris, represented by Michel Debroux, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2003)4637 Final of 16 December 2003 on State aid granted by France to the applicant and to the gas and electricity industry sectors in the form of accounting and fiscal measures adopted in 1997 when EDF's balance sheet was restructured;

alternatively, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision inasmuch as the repayment required of EDF was very considerably overestimated;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision, the Commission took the view that the non-payment by the applicant of corporation tax when tax-free provisions created by it for the renewal of its general supply network were reclassified as the provision of capital constituted State aid incompatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant relies first on a plea in law based on the alleged infringement of essential procedural requirements. It argues that in altering its assessment between the decision to initiate the procedure and the adoption of the contested decision without allowing the applicant to submit its observations, the Commission failed to have regard to the rights of the defence.

The applicant next alleges that the measures at issue must be analysed as a lawful recapitalisation on the applicant's part. In failing to respond to that argument, the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons and committed an error of law in its assessment of the concept of State aid. The applicant also alleges under the same plea that the measures at issue did not affect trade between Member States and accordingly could not be considered to be State aid.

Lastly, in support of the form of order sought in the alternative, the applicant alleges that the contested decision required repayment of a greater sum than that which could possibly be considered to be due.

____________