# C_2012379EN.01002702.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/27 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 17 October 2012 — British Telecommunications v Commission

(Case T-456/12)

2012/C 379/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Telecommunications plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Decision of the European Commission of 12 June 2012 given in State Aid Case SA.33540 (2012/N) — United Kingdom City of Birmingham — Digital District NGA Network; and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and paragraph 35 of the Broadband Guidelines( 1 ) by failing to analyse whether the objective of the aid is well defined; | — | the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and paragraph 35 of the Broadband Guidelines( 1 ) by failing to analyse whether the objective of the aid is well defined; |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and paragraph 35 of the Broadband Guidelines( 1 ) by failing to analyse whether the objective of the aid is well defined; | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission failed to assess the proportionality of the proposed measure under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and paragraphs 51 and 79 of the Broadband Guidelines and should have opened the formal investigation procedure; | — | the Commission failed to assess the proportionality of the proposed measure under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and paragraphs 51 and 79 of the Broadband Guidelines and should have opened the formal investigation procedure; |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | the Commission failed to assess the proportionality of the proposed measure under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and paragraphs 51 and 79 of the Broadband Guidelines and should have opened the formal investigation procedure; | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission should have opened the formal investigation procedure because the proposed aid has effects on markets other than NGA for which there is no market failure and the Commission failed to analyse them; | — | the Commission should have opened the formal investigation procedure because the proposed aid has effects on markets other than NGA for which there is no market failure and the Commission failed to analyse them; |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission should have opened the formal investigation procedure because the proposed aid has effects on markets other than NGA for which there is no market failure and the Commission failed to analyse them; | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that
—
by requiring the selected operator to ‘satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek’ the contested decision removes the ‘incentive effect’ and is incompatible with the Broadband Guidelines and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU; | — | by requiring the selected operator to ‘satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek’ the contested decision removes the ‘incentive effect’ and is incompatible with the Broadband Guidelines and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU; |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | by requiring the selected operator to ‘satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek’ the contested decision removes the ‘incentive effect’ and is incompatible with the Broadband Guidelines and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU; | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission has infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Broadband Guidelines by approving the use of State aid for the duplication of pre-existing leased lines networks in the Target Area; | — | the Commission has infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Broadband Guidelines by approving the use of State aid for the duplication of pre-existing leased lines networks in the Target Area; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | the Commission has infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Broadband Guidelines by approving the use of State aid for the duplication of pre-existing leased lines networks in the Target Area; | | |

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that
—
by requiring the New Network to ‘satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek’ the contested decision is disproportionate and inconsistent with the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications; | — | by requiring the New Network to ‘satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek’ the contested decision is disproportionate and inconsistent with the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | by requiring the New Network to ‘satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek’ the contested decision is disproportionate and inconsistent with the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications; | | |

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that
—
the contested decision is vitiated by errors of fact and manifest errors of appreciation and the Commission infringed its obligations in relation to the preliminary investigation to state adequate reasons on which it based the contested decision. | — | the contested decision is vitiated by errors of fact and manifest errors of appreciation and the Commission infringed its obligations in relation to the preliminary investigation to state adequate reasons on which it based the contested decision. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | the contested decision is vitiated by errors of fact and manifest errors of appreciation and the Commission infringed its obligations in relation to the preliminary investigation to state adequate reasons on which it based the contested decision. | | |

---

( 1 )  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks [OJ 2009 C 235, p. 7]

---