Action brought on 30 July 2007 - Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance v Commission

(Case T-289/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance (CNCEP) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile and É. Renaudeau, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty on the special rights granted to La Banque Postale, Caisses d'Épargne and Crédit Mutuel for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 declaring the provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier which give three credit institutions, La Banque Postale, Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and Crédit Mutuel, special rights for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu to be incompatible with Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.

In support of its action, the applicant raises six pleas in law.

The first plea alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements in that the Commission did not respect the applicant's rights of the defence and in that the decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning.

On the substance, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred in law in taking the view that the special rights for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu constituted, per se, a restriction on the freedom of establishment. According to the applicant, the Commission committed an error of assessment in taking the view that those special rights, in practice, rendered the exercise of Community freedoms in France less attractive.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by errors of law and of assessment in that the Commission took the view that the special rights could not be justified under Article 86(2) EC, and by a error of assessment in that it took the view that they could not be justified on grounds of compelling reasons in the public interest.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission erred by evaluating the national measure at issue in the light of the principle of the freedom to supply services.

____________