# C_2006096EN.01002301.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

---

Action brought on 22 February 2006 — H.A.L.T.E. v Commission

(Case T-58/06)

(2006/C 96/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens — H.A.L.T.E. (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J.-L. Lesquins, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, that the Commission has failed in its obligation to act by failing to define its position after having been called upon to do so in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of that Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, that the Commission has failed in its obligation to act by failing to define its position after having been called upon to do so in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of that Treaty;

| — | order the Commission to take all measures necessary to comply with the judgment in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to take all measures necessary to comply with the judgment in its entirety;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, an association of companies operating in the parcel service, transport and logistics sector seeks a declaration by the Court that the Commission has failed to act in that the latter refrained from initiating formal investigation proceedings as provided for under Article 88 EC and from ordering interim measures suspending the payment of the aid disputed in a complaint by the applicant relating to restructuring aid granted by the SNCF, a public company wholly owned by the French State, to the goods transport company SCS SERNAM.

In support of its action for a declaration of failure to act, the applicant relies on arguments that can be grouped together as two pleas as regards their substance.

The first plea alleges an infringement of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The applicant submits that the fact that a period of over six months elapsed following its first complaint, although the Commission was familiar with the case, because it had previous given decisions the infringement of which formed the subject-matter of the complaint, constitutes an indication of the serious difficulties encountered by the Commission in assessing whether the aid in question was compatible with the common market. The Commission is accordingly obliged, according to the applicant, to initiate the formal investigation proceeding into the aid referred to in the complaint. The applicant furthermore claims that even if the French authorities failed to give notice of the aid this cannot release the Commission from its obligations of due diligence, and that it is obliged to employ its powers of investigation as soon as it comes into possession of information on State measures which could be contrary to the principles of the common market, especially in the context of a complaint directed at an infringement of its previous decision fixing the conditions of compatibility of State aid with the common market (1).

1

The second plea alleges an infringement of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88) (2). The applicant claims that the Commission should have ordered interim measures suspending the payment of the aid in that, according to the applicant, one condition of objective urgency was met.

2

---

(1)  The decision in question is the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 relating to State aid put into effect by France in part in favour of the Sernam company, C (2004) 3940 final

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L, p. 1, most recently amended by Commission Regulation No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 182, p. 2)

2

---