# C_2004262EN.01005702.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/57

---

Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-348/04)

(2004/C 262/105)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 August 2004 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition (SIDE), established in Vitry-sur-Seine (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis and Valérie Giacobbo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1, last sentence, of the Commission decision of 20 April 2004 concerning the implementation by France of aid in favour of the Coopérative d'Exportation du livre français (CELF); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1, last sentence, of the Commission decision of 20 April 2004 concerning the implementation by France of aid in favour of the Coopérative d'Exportation du livre français (CELF);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1994 or, alternatively, 1997 or 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1994 or, alternatively, 1997 or 1999;

| — | in the further alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1 November 1993; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1 November 1993;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is an export agency for French-language books. In 1992, it lodged a complaint with the Commission relating to aid paid since 1977 by the French Government to the Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF). The Commission adopted decisions pursuant to that complaint. Those decisions were annulled by judgments of 18 September 1995 in Case T-49/93 and of 28 February 2002 in Case T-155/98. Further to the second judgment, the Commission adopted a third decision which is challenged in this action.

The applicant submits first that the market in export agency has many particular features of which the contested decision fails to take account. The applicant also notes that the description of the aid in the decision is erroneous in that, according to the applicant, this is individual aid and not an aid scheme, the aid is given on a discriminatory basis and the criterion for payment, namely handling small orders, is artificial.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision has no legal basis in that it declares the aid compatible, as an aid to culture, pursuant to Article 87(3)(d) EC in respect of the period prior to 1 November 1993. According to the applicant, that provision was introduced by the Treaty on European Union and thus could not form the legal basis for declaring aid compatible before that Treaty entered into force, namely on 1 November 1993.

The applicant further claims breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission based its decision on information dated later than the entry into force of the aid. According to the applicant, the decision results in a Member State being permitted to supply evaluation criteria which fluctuate over a period of more than 10 years, thereby favouring the situation of a State which has not complied with the obligation to notify, in breach of Article 88(3) EC.

Finally, the applicant claims breach of Article 87(3)(d) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission declared the aid compatible on the basis of assessment criteria which form part of assessment of an aid scheme open to all whilst the aid at issue is individual aid paid to a single operator. The applicant also claims that examination of CELF's accounting data shows that the aid has no link with the handling of small orders.

---