Action brought on 7 January 2013 - CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission
(Case T-2/13)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare the action brought by CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange admissible;
rule that the decision is annulled;
order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)).
In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
1. First plea in law alleging, primarily, infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the contested decision characterises as State aid the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom introduced by Law No 96-660 of 26 July 1996. The applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:
by holding that the 1996 Law could be characterised as an economic advantage;
by concluding that the reform was selective in nature, even though the absence of any external comparison prevents any selectivity;
by holding that the 1996 Law is liable to distort competition for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, even though the payment of an exceptional contribution by France Télécom would have legitimately neutralised the disabling effects of the 1990 Law for France Télécom.
2. Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors of law and of assessment by making the compatibility of the 1996 Law with the internal market subject to the conditions set out in Article 2 of the contested decision.
3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of several fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of equality of arms, the right of interested parties to be heard, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to be heard within a reasonable time period.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, the contested decision not being intended to recover State aid incompatible with the internal market, but to impose in the future on France Télécom supplementary burdens which would have the effect of impeding its development on the telecommunications markets.
____________1 - OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.