# C_2014135EN.01004401.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/44

---

Action brought on 31 January 2014 — France v Commission

(Case T-74/14)

2014/C 135/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety European Commission Decision No C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid No SA.16237 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety European Commission Decision No C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid No SA.16237 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 by which the Commission found that, first, the balance of the restructuring aid, notified by the French authorities on 18 February 2002, in the amount of EUR 15,81 million and, secondly, the three measures implemented by the French authorities in 2006 in favour of Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (‘SNCM’), namely, the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million, the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million subscribed for Compagnie générale maritime et financière (‘CGMF’) and the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million, constitute State aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market. The Commission consequently ordered recovery of those amounts.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence as the Commission refused to reopen the formal investigation procedure following the judgment delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v Commission [2012] ECR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence as the Commission refused to reopen the formal investigation procedure following the judgment delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v Commission [2012] ECR.

Corsica Ferries France

Commission

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of the concept of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU as the Commission found that the 2006 measures were to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. This plea is divided into three parts. The applicant takes the view that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:






  — | inasmuch as it found that the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million had to be classified as State aid and that the private investor test was not satisfied in the present case; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of the concept of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU as the Commission found that the 2006 measures were to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. This plea is divided into three parts. The applicant takes the view that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:

—

inasmuch as it found that the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million had to be classified as State aid and that the private investor test was not satisfied in the present case;

| — | inasmuch as it found that the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million had to be classified as State aid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as it found that the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million had to be classified as State aid; and

| — | inasmuch as it found that the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million in favour of SNCM employees had to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as it found that the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million in favour of SNCM employees had to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission found that the capital contribution of EUR 15,81 million notified in 2002 for restructuring aid had to be classified as State aid incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission found that the capital contribution of EUR 15,81 million notified in 2002 for restructuring aid had to be classified as State aid incompatible with the internal market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons.

---