# C_2011232EN.01003202.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/32

---

Action brought on 27 May 2011 — TF1 v Commission

(Case T-275/11)

(2011/C 232/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its action admissible and well-founded;

| — | by way of measures of organisation of procedure, in accordance with Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the production of the documents which the Commission used in order to conclude that public financing was proportional and transparent in character, namely: the reports on the implementation of Articles 2 and 3 fo the decree concerning the years 2007 and 2008 and the draft report referred to in Article 2 for the year 2009, and of the confidential version of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

by way of measures of organisation of procedure, in accordance with Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the production of the documents which the Commission used in order to conclude that public financing was proportional and transparent in character, namely: the reports on the implementation of Articles 2 and 3 fo the decree concerning the years 2007 and 2008 and the draft report referred to in Article 2 for the year 2009, and of the confidential version of the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/140/EU of 20 July 2010 declaring State aid in the form of an annual budgetary grant which the French authorities plan to implement in favour of France Télévisions compatible with the common market.

In support of its action, the applicant makes three pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea claims misinterpretation of the link between the new taxes envisaged for the reform of public broadcasting and financing of France Télévisions. The applicant cites evidence of a binding link between, on the one hand, the tax on advertising messsages and the tax on electronic communications and, on the other hand, the budgetary grants paid to France Télévisions, both from a legal point of view, taking account of all the relevant national legislation, and from an economic point of view, taking account of the mechanism for determining the amount of the aid, of the rate of the tax and of its actual use. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea claims misinterpretation of the link between the new taxes envisaged for the reform of public broadcasting and financing of France Télévisions. The applicant cites evidence of a binding link between, on the one hand, the tax on advertising messsages and the tax on electronic communications and, on the other hand, the budgetary grants paid to France Télévisions, both from a legal point of view, taking account of all the relevant national legislation, and from an economic point of view, taking account of the mechanism for determining the amount of the aid, of the rate of the tax and of its actual use.

| 2. | The second plea claims that there is a risk of overcompensation linked to the mechanism for financing France Télévisions. The applicant complains, first, that, not having access to several administrative documents, it was not in a position usefully to exercise its right of action and, secondly, that the Commission misinterpreted Article 106(2) TFEU by not taking account of the condition of economic efficiency in the provision of public service, in the context of its analysis of the legality of the contested measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea claims that there is a risk of overcompensation linked to the mechanism for financing France Télévisions. The applicant complains, first, that, not having access to several administrative documents, it was not in a position usefully to exercise its right of action and, secondly, that the Commission misinterpreted Article 106(2) TFEU by not taking account of the condition of economic efficiency in the provision of public service, in the context of its analysis of the legality of the contested measure.

| 3. | The third plea claims failure to take account of other rules of the TFEU and secondary law. The applicant argues, first, that the tax on electronic communications is contrary to Article 110 TFEU; second, that the disputed taxes constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in that the accumulation of specific taxes on the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors largely limits the possibility for broadcasting and telecommunications operators to carry on their economic activities in France; and, third, that the disputed measure is contrary to Directive 2002/20 of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services in so far as it places a tax on telecoms operators who do not comply with the conditions laid down by the directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea claims failure to take account of other rules of the TFEU and secondary law. The applicant argues, first, that the tax on electronic communications is contrary to Article 110 TFEU; second, that the disputed taxes constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in that the accumulation of specific taxes on the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors largely limits the possibility for broadcasting and telecommunications operators to carry on their economic activities in France; and, third, that the disputed measure is contrary to Directive 2002/20 of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services in so far as it places a tax on telecoms operators who do not comply with the conditions laid down by the directive.

---