# C_2012138EN.01000601.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/6

---

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission

(Case C-115/12 P)

(2012/C 138/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10;

| — | rule once and for all on the dispute itself by annulling Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France, or refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

rule once and for all on the dispute itself by annulling Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France, or refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not infringed Article 2(1)of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) by categorising the tax relief granted to the partners, who are natural persons, of the general commercial partnerships which invested in the public works contract for the renovation and extension of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers (Buccaneer’s Creek), as a direct subsidy for the purposes of that provision.

By the first part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the tax relief measures could be categorised as subsidies for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC.

By the second part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the tax relief was direct for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC since that relief was granted specifically for the purposes of the works contract in question, although it was not granted to the developer, contractor, operator or owner of the establishment in question.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by distorting the content of the contested decision and substituting its own reasoning for that of the Commission. According to the French Government, the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision by taking the view that the Commission took the overall aims and functions of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers, and not the nature of the works carried out, as its basis in determining whether the works contract for the renovation and extension of that holiday village was covered by Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC.

By its third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not infringed Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by categorising the works contract for the renovation and extension of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers, as a contract relating to building work for a facility intended for sports, recreation and leisure within the meaning of that provision.

By the first part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the concept of facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure in Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC should be interpreted broadly, as not being restricted to facilities which seek to meet the traditional needs of public authorities, that is to say the collective needs of users.

By the second branch of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the concept of works contracts for the purposes of Article 2 of Directive 93/37/EEC should be interpreted independently of the concept of public works contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that directive and that, consequently, the Commission did not infringe Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by finding that the works contract at issue in the present case was covered by that provision although, according to the French Government, that contract was not of direct economic interest to the contracting authority.

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54

---