# C_2005171EN.01001201.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/12

---

Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-232/05)

(2005/C 171/20)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Christophe Giolito, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to execute, within the prescribed period, the Commission decision of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by the French Republic to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (State aid CR 38/1998, ex NN 52/1998) (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to execute, within the prescribed period, the Commission decision of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by the French Republic to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (State aid CR 38/1998, ex NN 52/1998) (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French authorities have not done what is necessary to ensure the correct, immediate and effective execution of the decision in accordance with national procedures, contrary to Article 14(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) which provides that the Member State is to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary. The decision of the national court runs counter to its obligation to give practical effect to Community law, and under French law it is not possible to take interim measures to offset the automatic effect of the stay of proceedings.

1

The position of the French authorities appears to be contrary to the duty to cooperate in good faith as defined in Article 10 EC. France did not reply to the Commission's letter of 21 November 2003 despite three reminders and a meeting held between the Commission's DG Competition and the French authorities to go over the French cases of recovery of State aid. In particular, in spite of the fact that the Commission asked France several times for a copy of the order staying the proceedings, it never obtained one. The Commission therefore remains uncertain with regard to the exact progress of the recovery proceedings. That doubt is moreover increased by the fact that information obtained from unofficial sources in July 2004 by the Commission shows that the order staying the proceedings was never made, contrary to the assertions of the French authorities. In those circumstances, the Commission is unable to deal with the recovery in a spirit of cooperation in good faith as defined by the case-law of the Court.

---

(1)  OJ L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1.

1

---