# C_2010288EN.01004301.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/43

---

Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Iliad and Others v Commission

(Case T-325/10)

()

(2010/C 288/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Iliad SA (Paris, France), Free infrastructure SAS (Paris) and Free SA (Paris) (represented by: T. Cabot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | declare the present application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible;

| — | annul European Commission Decision of 30 September 2009 approving the public financing of EUR 59 million for the planned very-high-speed broadband network in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision of 30 September 2009 approving the public financing of EUR 59 million for the planned very-high-speed broadband network in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009, (1) declaring that the compensation for a public service charge of EUR 59 million, granted by the French authorities to a consortium of undertakings for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network (THD 92 project) in the department of Hauts-de-Seine does not constitute State aid.

In support of their action the applicants put forward three pleas in law:

| — | infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission has not complied with any of the four criteria set out in the Altmark (2) case-law holding that the measure concerned did not constitute State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission has not complied with any of the four criteria set out in the Altmark (2) case-law holding that the measure concerned did not constitute State aid;

| — | infringement of the obligation to state reasons for a decision, in so far as the contested decision does not contain sufficient evidence to conclude that all the conditions for the application of the Altmark case-law have been fulfilled; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the obligation to state reasons for a decision, in so far as the contested decision does not contain sufficient evidence to conclude that all the conditions for the application of the Altmark case-law have been fulfilled;

| — | infringement of the obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, in so far as all the evidence obtained in the preliminary examination procedure, documents describing the size and complexity of the examination to be carried out and the partially incomplete and inadequate content of the contested decision, show that the Commission took the contested decision despite the fact that it experienced serious difficulties in assessing whether the measure concerned was compatible with the common market. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, in so far as all the evidence obtained in the preliminary examination procedure, documents describing the size and complexity of the examination to be carried out and the partially incomplete and inadequate content of the contested decision, show that the Commission took the contested decision despite the fact that it experienced serious difficulties in assessing whether the measure concerned was compatible with the common market.

---

(1)  State aid N 331/2008 — France.

(2)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747.

---