Action brought on 8 April 2009 - France v Commission
(Case T-139/09)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 2003 final of 28 January 2009 on the contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France, in so far as it refers to the part of the measures taken under the contingency plans which was financed by sectoral contributions;
In the alternative, were the Court to find that application for partial annulment inadmissible, annul Decision C(2009) 2003 final in its entirety;
Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final
1 of 28 January 2009, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market State aids granted by the French Republic to producers of fruit and vegetables under the 'contingency plans' aimed at facilitating the marketing of agricultural products harvested in France.
The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision, to the extent that the Commission found that the measures taken in favour of the producers of fruit and vegetables constituted State aid, whereas those measures were in part financed by voluntary contributions from the producers which do not, according to the applicant, amount to State resources or resources attributable to the State.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas based on:
breach of the obligation to state reasons, to the extent that the Commission did not justify the extension of the finding of State aid to measures financed by voluntary contributions from the producers in the sector concerned;
an error of law, since the Commission regarded as State aid measures financed by private resources paid voluntarily and without State intervention. Those measures cannot be regarded as advantages granted through State resources.
____________1 - That is the number stated in the contested decision, whereas the applicant consistently refers to the number C(2009) 2003 final.