Action brought on 12 July 2006 - Télévision Française 1 v Commission

(Case T-193/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Télévision Française 1 (Boulogne, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the application admissible and well founded;

order the annulment of the decision given by the Commission on 22 March 2006 concerning aid schemes for the film and audiovisual industry;

make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 3 October 2001 the applicant lodged with the Commission two complaints by which it applied for a finding that the changes to the aid schemes in the field of support for the film and audiovisual industry in France constituted illegal State aid, in so far as they conferred, in breach of Article 88(3) EC, and in any event, State aid incompatible with the common market.

By Decision C(2006)832 Final of 22 March 2006 (State Aid NN 84/2004 and N 95/2004 - France, aid schemes for the cinema and audiovisual industry), the Commission declared the support schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production put in place in France to be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d) EC. That is the decision contested in this action.

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

By its first plea in law, the applicant maintains that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned in respect of the nature of parafiscal charges, the nature of the investment obligations imposed on televised broadcasters and the compatibility with the common market of the other measures of State support challenged by the applicant.

By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission also made manifest errors of assessment of the concept of State resources by deciding that the system of compulsory orders does not involve the transfer of State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

The third plea in law relied upon by the applicant alleges breach by the Commission of Article 87(3)(d) EC in that the contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment of the meaning of 'aid to promote culture'.

____________