# C_2017239EN.01005001.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/50

---

Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Keolis CIF and Others v Commission

(Case T-289/17)

(2017/C 239/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Keolis CIF (Le Mesnil-Amelot, France), Keolis Val d’Oise (Bernes-sur-Oise, France), Keolis Seine Sénart (Draveil, France), Keolis Seine Val de Marne (Athis-Mons, France), Keolis Seine Esonne (Ormoy, France), Keolis Vélizy (Versailles, France), Keolis Yvelines (Versailles) and Keolis Versailles (Versailles) (represented by: D. Epaud and R. Sermier, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Principally, annul in part the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 concerning the aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île de France region insofar as it declares, in Article 1 thereof, that the aid scheme has been ‘unlawfully’ implemented, although the aid scheme at issue was already in existence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Principally, annul in part the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 concerning the aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île de France region insofar as it declares, in Article 1 thereof, that the aid scheme has been ‘unlawfully’ implemented, although the aid scheme at issue was already in existence;

| — | In the alternative, annul in part the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 concerning the aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île de France region insofar as it declares, in Article 1 thereof, that the aid scheme has been ‘unlawfully’ implemented, with respect to the period before 25 November 1998; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul in part the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 concerning the aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île de France region insofar as it declares, in Article 1 thereof, that the aid scheme has been ‘unlawfully’ implemented, with respect to the period before 25 November 1998;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First and primary plea in law, alleging that the regional aid scheme was not unlawfully implemented, since it was not subject to any obligation of prior notification. The regional aid scheme is, in fact, an existing aid scheme, within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU and the provisions of Article 1(b) and Chapter VI of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9; ‘Regulation No 2015/1589’). Under the rules applicable to existing aid schemes, their implementation is not unlawful since the Commission may merely lay down, if necessary, appropriate measures to enable them to develop or be closed in the future. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First and primary plea in law, alleging that the regional aid scheme was not unlawfully implemented, since it was not subject to any obligation of prior notification. The regional aid scheme is, in fact, an existing aid scheme, within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU and the provisions of Article 1(b) and Chapter VI of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9; ‘Regulation No 2015/1589’). Under the rules applicable to existing aid schemes, their implementation is not unlawful since the Commission may merely lay down, if necessary, appropriate measures to enable them to develop or be closed in the future.

| 2. | Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that, even if the aid scheme at issue were not to constitute an existing aid scheme, the Commission was not entitled to carry its investigation back beyond the limitation period of 10 years preceding 25 November 2008, the date on which the Commission sent a request for information to the French authorities. Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589 provides that the limitation period is to be interrupted only by action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission. Thus, the applicants are of the opinion that the Commission was entitled to carry its examination back only until 25 November 1998. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that, even if the aid scheme at issue were not to constitute an existing aid scheme, the Commission was not entitled to carry its investigation back beyond the limitation period of 10 years preceding 25 November 2008, the date on which the Commission sent a request for information to the French authorities. Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589 provides that the limitation period is to be interrupted only by action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission. Thus, the applicants are of the opinion that the Commission was entitled to carry its examination back only until 25 November 1998.

---