# C_2013252EN.01004201.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/42 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 July 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-366/13)

2013/C 252/70

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety Decision C(2013) 1926 final of the European Commission of 2 May 2013 on State aid No SA.22843 2012 implemented by France in favour of the Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | 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(2013) 1926 final of 2 May 2013, by which the Commission, first, classified as State aid the financial compensation paid to the Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (CNM) in respect of maritime transport services provided between Marseilles and Corsica under a public service agreement during the period 2007-2013. Next, the Commission declared compatible with the internal market the compensation paid to SNCM and CNM for transport services provided throughout the year (‘the basic service’) but declared incompatible with the internal market the compensation paid in respect of the services provided during peak periods, namely Christmas, February, Spring-Autumn and/or Summer (‘the additional services’). Lastly, the Commission ordered the recovery of the aid declared incompatible with the internal market (State aid Case SA.22843 2012/C(ex 2012/NN).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, divided into two parts, alleging that the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU was misapplied, the Commission having classified the compensation paid to SNCM and CNM as State aid, on the basis the the first and fourth conditions laid down by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeberg [2003] ECR I-7747 were not fully satisfied.
—
The applicant submits by the first part of the first plea that the contested decision misapplies the concept of State aid in so far as the Commission took the view that the first condition laid down in Altmark was not fully satisfied. The applicant maintains in that regard: —
first, that by making a distinction between the basic service and the additional service, the Commission committed an error of fact and of law and failed to have due regard to the broad discretion enjoyed by Member States in determining which services of general economic interest they wish to preserve; —
second, that, taken together, the services covered by the public service agreement concluded between SNCM and CNM on the one hand, and the Office de Transports de la Corse and the Collectivité territoriale de Corse (Corsica local authorities) on the other, constitute services of general economic interest and that agreement satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark; —
third, that even if a distinction must be made between the basic service and the additional service, the additional service constitutes, in the same way as the basic service, a service of general economic interest and satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark, since there is a genuine need for public services arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services operating under conditions of free competition. —
By the second part of the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision misinterprets the concept of State aid in that the Commission took the view that the fourth condition laid down in Altmark was not satisfied. The applicant contends that the procedure for the award of the public service contract made it possible to ensure conditions of effective competition and, therefore, the selection of the most economically advantageous tender for the local authorities. | — | The applicant submits by the first part of the first plea that the contested decision misapplies the concept of State aid in so far as the Commission took the view that the first condition laid down in Altmark was not fully satisfied. The applicant maintains in that regard: | — | first, that by making a distinction between the basic service and the additional service, the Commission committed an error of fact and of law and failed to have due regard to the broad discretion enjoyed by Member States in determining which services of general economic interest they wish to preserve; | — | second, that, taken together, the services covered by the public service agreement concluded between SNCM and CNM on the one hand, and the Office de Transports de la Corse and the Collectivité territoriale de Corse (Corsica local authorities) on the other, constitute services of general economic interest and that agreement satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark; | — | third, that even if a distinction must be made between the basic service and the additional service, the additional service constitutes, in the same way as the basic service, a service of general economic interest and satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark, since there is a genuine need for public services arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services operating under conditions of free competition. | — | By the second part of the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision misinterprets the concept of State aid in that the Commission took the view that the fourth condition laid down in Altmark was not satisfied. The applicant contends that the procedure for the award of the public service contract made it possible to ensure conditions of effective competition and, therefore, the selection of the most economically advantageous tender for the local authorities. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant submits by the first part of the first plea that the contested decision misapplies the concept of State aid in so far as the Commission took the view that the first condition laid down in Altmark was not fully satisfied. The applicant maintains in that regard: | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | first, that by making a distinction between the basic service and the additional service, the Commission committed an error of fact and of law and failed to have due regard to the broad discretion enjoyed by Member States in determining which services of general economic interest they wish to preserve; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | second, that, taken together, the services covered by the public service agreement concluded between SNCM and CNM on the one hand, and the Office de Transports de la Corse and the Collectivité territoriale de Corse (Corsica local authorities) on the other, constitute services of general economic interest and that agreement satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | third, that even if a distinction must be made between the basic service and the additional service, the additional service constitutes, in the same way as the basic service, a service of general economic interest and satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark, since there is a genuine need for public services arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services operating under conditions of free competition. | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | By the second part of the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision misinterprets the concept of State aid in that the Commission took the view that the fourth condition laid down in Altmark was not satisfied. The applicant contends that the procedure for the award of the public service contract made it possible to ensure conditions of effective competition and, therefore, the selection of the most economically advantageous tender for the local authorities. | | | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, the Commission having taken the view that the financial compensation paid to SNCM in respect of the additional service constituted State aid incompatible with the internal market, on the basis that that service was not a service of general economic interest. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---