# C_2012174EN.01002402.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/24 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 2 March 2012 — France v Commission

(Case T-135/12)

2012/C 174/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| - | --------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011 declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, divided in two parts, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the Commission considered that the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom amounted to State aid. The applicant submits that:
—
the Commission was wrong to take the view that the reduction in the contribution to be paid to the State by France Télécom does not free the latter from the structural disadvantage suffered by it following the entry into force of the 1990 Law and that the measure confers an advantage on that company; —
in the alternative, the Commission was wrong to take the view that France Télécom benefited from an advantage as from 1996 despite the payment of an exceptional flat-rate contribution by that company. | — | the Commission was wrong to take the view that the reduction in the contribution to be paid to the State by France Télécom does not free the latter from the structural disadvantage suffered by it following the entry into force of the 1990 Law and that the measure confers an advantage on that company; | — | in the alternative, the Commission was wrong to take the view that France Télécom benefited from an advantage as from 1996 despite the payment of an exceptional flat-rate contribution by that company. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission was wrong to take the view that the reduction in the contribution to be paid to the State by France Télécom does not free the latter from the structural disadvantage suffered by it following the entry into force of the 1990 Law and that the measure confers an advantage on that company; | | | | |
| — | in the alternative, the Commission was wrong to take the view that France Télécom benefited from an advantage as from 1996 despite the payment of an exceptional flat-rate contribution by that company. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in that the Commission made the compatibility of the measure in question conditional upon the requirement laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision being satisfied. The second plea is divided into two parts.
—
By the first part of the plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU when it took the view that the competitively fair rate had not been attained in the present case because non-common risks had not been taken into account in calculating the contribution paid by France Télécom following the entry into force of the 1996 Law. —
By the second part of the plea, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU when it refused to assess the inadequacy of the competitively fair rate in the light of the payment of an exceptional flat-rate contribution by France Télécom and when it concluded that that company had not been placed in a completely equivalent position to that of its competitors until 2043. | — | By the first part of the plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU when it took the view that the competitively fair rate had not been attained in the present case because non-common risks had not been taken into account in calculating the contribution paid by France Télécom following the entry into force of the 1996 Law. | — | By the second part of the plea, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU when it refused to assess the inadequacy of the competitively fair rate in the light of the payment of an exceptional flat-rate contribution by France Télécom and when it concluded that that company had not been placed in a completely equivalent position to that of its competitors until 2043. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By the first part of the plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU when it took the view that the competitively fair rate had not been attained in the present case because non-common risks had not been taken into account in calculating the contribution paid by France Télécom following the entry into force of the 1996 Law. | | | | |
| — | By the second part of the plea, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU when it refused to assess the inadequacy of the competitively fair rate in the light of the payment of an exceptional flat-rate contribution by France Télécom and when it concluded that that company had not been placed in a completely equivalent position to that of its competitors until 2043. | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the Commission refused to accept a rate of 7 % as the discount rate for the exceptional flat-rate contribution. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---