Action brought on 2 January 2012 - France v Commission
(Case T-1/12)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the contested decision in its entirety;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C (2011) 7808 final of 24 October 2011, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the restructuring aids which the French authorities proposed to grant to SeaFrance SA in the form of an increase in capital and loans granted by SNCF to SeaFrance.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found that the question whether the two loans proposed by SNCF were reasonable had to be considered together with the rescue and restructuring aid. This plea is divided into two branches based:
first, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly interpreted the Court's judgment in Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR II-3235; and
second, in the alternative, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly applied that judgment of the Court.
2. Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found, for the sake of completeness, that the French authorities have not proved that, considered in isolation, the two loans proposed by SNCF would have been granted at a market rate. That plea is divided into two branches based on:
first, the fact that the Commission incorrectly excluded the two loans at issue from the application of the Commission Communication of 19 January 2008 on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates; and
second, the fact that the Commission incorrectly found that, to be compatible with the market, the rate of the loans in question should have been around 14%.
3. Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact when the Commission found that the restructuring aid is incompatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, interpreted in the light of the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 345 TFEU which provides that the Treaties are not in any way to prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.
____________1 - OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6.