Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2007:295
Date: 2007-09-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Statement of reasons;General;Applications by natural or legal persons;Use of State resources
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

summary manner. 87 According to the Commission, it is clear from the relevant passages of the decision that the statement of reasons is sufficient in law. In that regard the Commission refers to recitals 38 to 40, 74 – with footnote No 12 to which that recital refers – and 121 of the preamble to the decision. 88 The Commission considers that it was not obliged to analyse in greater depth the reasons why the criteria laid down by the case-law cited were not satisfied. In its view it is quite clear from the aid scheme at issue, first, that the State, through the intermediary of the CIVDN, had the power freely to make use of the resources in question and, secondly, that the financing of the measures referred to in Article 1 of the decision was not attributable solely to members of the trade association in question, but was clearly part of a State policy. 89 The Commission adds that, in the application, the assertion of failure to state adequate reasons was limited to the inter-branch contributions. However, the Commission submits that it took no decision on this point, since the nature of the inter-branch contributions was not part of the operative part of the decision. 90 In any event, and in the alternative, the Commission considers that this plea is inadmissible, since the applicants have not explained how the overall statement of reasons the decision relating to the existence of State aid, as set out in recitals 71 to 82 of the preamble to the decision, is insufficient in light of the requirements of Article 253 EC. Findings of the Court 91 According to settled case-law, the question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question. While the Commission, in the statement of reasons for a decision, is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by interested parties during the administrative procedure, it must none the less take account of all the circumstances and all the relevant factors of the case so as to enable the Community judicature to review its lawfulness and make clear both to the Member States and to the persons concerned the circumstances in which the Commission has applied the Treaty (see Joined Cases T‑371/94 and T‑394/94 British Airways and Others and British Midland Airways v Commission [1998] ECR II‑2405, paragraph 94, and case-law cited). 92 For the purposes of examining whether the obligation to state reasons was satisfied in the present context, it must be pointed out that the procedure for reviewing State aid is a procedure initiated in respect of the Member State responsible for granting the aid and that the parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, which include the recipient of the aid, cannot themselves seek to debate the issues with the Commission in the same way as may the abovementioned Member State (see Case T‑198/01 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission [2004] ECR II‑2717, paragraph 61, and case-law cited there). 93 It is in the light of the foregoing that the court must determine whether the statement of the reasons in the decision satisfy the requirements of Article 253 EC. 94 In the decision, the Commission begins its assessment (part V.1) by citing Article 87(1) EC (recital 71). The Commission then examines (part V. 1.1, recitals 73 to 76) the ‘existence of a selective advantage financed by State resources’. Those recitals are read as follows: ‘73. Measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions are regarded as aid. 74. The Commission notes that the type of contributions in this case required the adoption of an act by a public authority for their full impact to be felt and that the resources they generated served as a tool to implement a State-supported policy. In addition, there is no proof that the beneficiaries of aid are always those liable to the corresponding charges. For these reasons, the contributions do not meet the criteria for derogations from Article 87(1) of the Treaty, as proposed by Court of Justice case-law. Consequently, the Commission considers that this is a case of parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources. 75. Moreover, according to ECJ case law, measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect are also considered to be aid. 76. The existence and type of the aid must be established for the potential beneficiaries of the Rivesaltes Plan and of the inter-branch contributions for publicity and promotion and for operating and financing certain AOCs. In the case in point, the support given did favour certain undertakings since the aid was only granted to AOC producers operating in certain specific regions.’ 95 Recital 74 of the preamble to the decision refers to footnote No 12, which contains a reference to Case C‑345/02 Pearle and Others [2004] ECR I‑7139), and recital 75 of the preamble to the decision refers, in footnote No 13, to Case C‑355/00 Freskot [2003] ECR I‑5263. 96 Then, under the heading ‘Effects on trade’ (part V.1.2), the decision devotes five recitals (77 to 81) to the criteria of effect on trade. 97 Lastly, under the heading ‘Conclusions regarding the nature of the “aid” under Article 87(1) of the Treaty’ (part V.1.3), the decision states the following, in recital 82; ‘In the light of the above explanations, the Commission considers that the measures in favour of producers of AOC wines operating in certain specific regions constitute a financial advantage financed by public resources allocated to them which is not available to other operators, which distorts or has the potential to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings and productions, thereby is likely to affect trade between Member States. It is therefore aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.’ 98 First, it is clear that, as regards the nature of the inter-branch contributions financing, including, the set-aside premium, recital 74 of the preamble to the decision contains a clear statement of reasons. The contributions in question ‘required the adoption of an act by a public authority for their full impact to be felt’ and ‘the resources they generated served as a tool to implement a State-supported policy’. It was a case of ‘parafiscal charges i.e. public resources’. Moreover, recital 29 of the preamble to the decision elaborates on the arguments put forward by the Commission at the opening stage of the examination procedure and adds clarification in respect the nature of the contributions. 99 Secondly, while it is true that the decision does not specify the criteria laid down by the Court in its case-law as to when a situation is not caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 87(1) EC, it does cite that article (recital 71) as well as the case-law defining which actions should be considered as aid (recitals 73 and 75) and sets out the reasons why that article and case-law apply to the present case (recitals 74 and 76 to 82). The Commission was bound to state the reasons why the measures in question came within the scope of Article 87(1) EC rather than why they did not. The fact that the Commission merely refers to Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, and does not go into detail to prove the contrary cannot be regarded as being a failure to state reasons. 100 Thirdly, as regards the alleged requirement that reasons must be stated separately for each of the measures in question, it cannot be inferred from Case T‑93/02 Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel v Commission [2005] ECR II‑143 that, for each measure considered by the Commission to constitute aid there must be separate reasons given for each of the four conditions for the application of Article 87 EC. 101 In that case, the starting point of the Court was the finding that the designation of the aid in the operative part of the contested decision was not sufficient to enable the persons concerned and the Court to ascertain which measure or measures were found, in that case, to constitute aid (paragraph 73). In paragraph 122, the Court added that the contested decision did not state sufficient reasons in regard to the identification of the measures treated as aid. 102 That is not the situation in the present case, quite the contrary. The operative part of the decision classifies as State aid the set-aside premiums, the conversion plan and the advertising and operating aid and devotes a paragraph to each measure. The parties concerned and the Court are therefore able without difficulty to ascertain which measures are considered, in the present case, to be aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. The Court observes moreover that, since the action is admissible only to the extent that it relates to annulment of Article 1(1) of the decision, the assessment must be restricted to the statement of reasons for the set-aside premium. 103 In addition, in the present case, and in contrast to the decision challenged in Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel v Commission, paragraph 100 above, a distinction is generally drawn in the reasons for the decision between the three measures under consideration. Thus, under point II, entitled ‘Description’, the decision describes in turn the system of the set-aside premium (part II.1.1), conversion aid (part II.1.2) and inter-branch contributions for publicity and promotion (part II.2). Then, again, in the discussion of the points raised by the Commission in the context of initiating the examination procedure (part II. 3), the decision distinguishes between the set-aside premium (recitals 30 to 32), the conversion costs (recitals 33 to 37) and the aid for advertising (recitals 38 and 39). Similarly, in part IV, on the observations submitted by the French Republic, that distinction is again found, namely the set-aside premium (part IV.1.1), conversion aid (part IV.1.2) and initiatives for publicity and promotion (part IV.2). Lastly, in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid (part V.2), the decision again distinguishes between the three measures, with recitals 95 to 106 covering the set-aside premium, recitals 107 to 118 the conversion aid, and recitals 119 to 123 the aid for publicity and promotion. 104 It is true that, in its examination of the conditions laid down by Article 87(1) EC, under the headings ‘Existence of a selective advantage financed by State resources’ and ‘Effects on trade’, the decision does not distinguish between the three measures. That examination clearly applies to the three measures covered. Nevertheless, it enables the persons concerned to ascertain how the Commission has applied the Treaty and enables the Court to exercise its power of review. Unlike the Le Levant case (Case T‑34/02 Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-267, paragraphs 109 to 132), relied on by the applicants, the decision does state how the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) EC for a finding of incompatibility with the common market are met in the present case. The fact that the decision does so in a global fashion cannot in itself be considered to be an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, especially since the measures in question are all part of the same course of action. 105 It follows that the first plea in law must be dismissed, without its being unnecessary to consider the argument put forward in the alternative by the Commission in its rejoinder. The second plea: infringement of Article 87(1) EC 106 One part of the applicants’ argument is that the inter-branch contributions cannot be described as State resources and a second part is that they cannot be imputed to the State. However, since the parties’ written pleadings often address those two parts of this plea together, they can be dealt with together. Arguments of the parties 107 The applicants submit that, in accordance with settled case-law, before the measures in question can be classified as State aid, they must cumulatively meet four conditions. However, one condition is lacking in the present case, namely that the measures must have their origin in the State, that is, they must be financed through State resources and must be imputable to the State. 108 The applicants rely on the case-law of the Court to the effect that a measure which is made obligatory by the public authority but which is financed by private undertakings, while the public authority has at no time power of disposal of the funds in question, does not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources (Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 59). 109 According to the applicants, it is clear from the case-law that the determining criterion is whether there exists sufficient power of disposal of the funds which have served to finance the measure. In the decision, however the Commission inferred that the contributions are State resources from the mere fact that they had required the adoption of an act by a public authority for their full impact to be felt. The Commission thus did not carry out the analysis required by the case-law. 110 The applicants submit that, in the area of inter-branch contributions, where a private initiative undertaken by members of a trade association is undertaken, the action of the State is restricted to approving the contributions for the purpose of making their payment mandatory by all the members of the inter-branch organisation. The public authority merely carries out a check of proper accounting after the fact; and at no time does it have any control over the funds. The CIVDN enjoyed complete autonomy as regards both the funding and operation of the advertising and for operating certain AOCs and the set-aside premium. 111 A merely general approach to how the CIVDN operates does not take account of the reality of how it is run. A specific, functional approach is in any event preferable. 112 According to the applicants, the recent orders of the French Minister for Economic Affairs of 31 March 2006 relating to procedures whereby the State may exercise economic and financial control over agricultural inter-branch organisations are evidence that the State has no ability to make use of funds collected by the inter-branch organisations through the trade contributions. 113 The applicants assert that the Commission is manifestly in error when it claims that the set-aside premium is financed principally by means of a parafiscal charge amounting to FRF 50 per hectolitre produced in the Pyrenees region. Rather, a specific trade contribution is levied to finance the set-aside plan, as evidenced by Decision 96-1 of the CIVDN. The parafiscal charge in question is a marginal element in the CIVDN’s resources, since it is reserved for its operations. 114 As to the assessment of whether inter-trade contributions intended to finance advertising and for operating certain AOCs are imputable to the State, the applicants assert that, for a private person such as an inter-branch organisation, the decisive criterion is whether or not the organisation in question can take the measure in question without taking account of any requirements of public authorities. It cannot be disputed that those initiatives, unlike those at issue in connection with the Rivesaltes Plan, in no way form part of a State policy. On the contrary, in their view, the measures were taken solely to further an objective set previously by trade circles. By concluding that those initiatives could be classified as State aid in Article 1(3) of the decision, the Commission thus erred in law and manifestly infringed Article 87(1) EC. 115 The Commission takes the view that mere examination of Law No 200 of 2 April 1943 on the creation of the CIVDN, as amended by Decree No 55‑1064 of 20 October 1956, is sufficient to demonstrate that the measures at issue cannot stem from anything other than an act imputable to the State and that those measures are financed from State resources. In its view, it is clear from that law that the CIVDN includes on an equal footing both producers and public authorities (Article 2) and that its executive board consists largely of representatives of the State (Article 4). The Commission also refers to Article 7 of that law, which provides that proposals from the CIVDN or its executive board become mandatory for all members of the trades concerned as soon as they receive approval from either the Minister for Agriculture or the Government commissioner, as the case may be. The Commission also refers to Article 14 of that law, which provides that the budget is to be submitted for approval by the Ministers for Agriculture and Finance and that expenses relating to management costs of the CIVDN or the implementation of its trade objectives are to be covered by charges levied either on the sale of goods or by other means. Lastly, the Commission states that Article 15 of that law provides that the financial management of the CIVDN is subject to review by the State. In those circumstances, the Commission considers that resources involved are clearly State resources and the measures are imputable to the State. 116 That interpretation of the dominant role of the State is largely supported by Decision 04‑D‑35 of the French competition authority of 23 July 2004 relating to practices implemented in the market of natural sweet wines of the ‘Rivesaltes’ AOC. 117 According to the Commission, although it is true that Decision 96-1 of the CIVDN of 5 July 1996 provided that revenue from the inter-trade contribution was intended solely for payment of the set-aside premium to producers entitled to it, it proved to be insufficient for that purpose. Accordingly the general council provided special aid of FRF 2 million. In addition, the general assembly of the CIVDN of 20 December 2000 decided to merge the set-aside account and the CIVDN’s general account, which enhanced that organisation’s ability, subject to State control, to make use of paid-in resources irrespective of their origin. 118 The Commission states that the set-aside premium was financed principally by means of a genuine parafiscal charge, in the amount of FRF 50 per hectolitre produced in the Pyrenees region. There can therefore be no doubt that that parafiscal charge was imposed directly by the State and that there was no question of a voluntary sectoral contribution. 119 The Commission emphasises that the contributions were examined in the decision solely in order to determine whether they constituted State resources intended to finance the three measures covered by the decision. On the other hand, the contributions as such were not classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Accordingly the Commission maintains that the applicant’s second plea, as contained in the application, is inadmissible and devoid of purpose, since the Commission never examined and did not have to examine whether the contributions were themselves State aid. 120 The Commission states that at no point can the decision be construed to the effect that there is hypothecation within the meaning of the case-law between the revenue from the contributions and the amount of the aid paid in respect of the three measures covered. The aid scheme at issue established, irrespective of the revenue from the contributions, the amount of the aid which was then paid solely according to the personal situation of the recipients. 121 In its rejoinder, the Commission infers from the fact that the applicants confirmed that their action was ‘limited to contesting imputability to the State solely of the inter-trade contributions in question under Article [1(3)] of the operative part of the decision’ that the action does not relate to the three measures referred to in Article 1 of the decision. The Commission adds however that the subsequent wording of paragraph 86 of the reply might suggest that the applicants challenge the finding that the contributions constitute State resources in so far as they were intended to finance advertising and operations. However, according to the Commission, the applicants succumb to the same confusion in the last paragraph of their reply when they conclude that the Commission was wrong to find that, since the contributions financed the advertising and operating certain AOCs, they could be classified as State aid. On the basis of this lack of clarity and because it is not in a position to defend itself on the point, the Commission contends that the plea must be held to be inadmissible. The Commission contends in the alternative that the plea is unfounded. Findings of the Court 122 Since the Commission disputes, in its rejoinder, the admissibility of this plea, it is appropriate to begin examination of this plea with that issue. – The admissibility of the plea alleging infringement of Article 87(1) EC 123 In the rejoinder, the Commission contends that it cannot present a defence because of the lack of clarity in the applicants various written pleadings. 124 While the applicants’ arguments in their written pleadings may in certain respects lead to confusion, it is nevertheless evident that the essence of the plea is clear from the application. The applicants allege an error of law and infringement of Article 87(1) EC. They divide that plea into two parts, the first alleging that the contributions are not State resources and the second that the inter-branch contributions intended to finance the advertising and for operating certain AOCs cannot be imputed to the State. Further, the summary of the pleas in law and principal arguments relied on in the application contains the following: ‘The Court is asked to annul the decision … on the grounds that: … – the decision entails an infringement of Article 87(1) EC in that it classifies the contributions made by trades referred to in Article 1(1) and (3) of the operative part, as State aid.’ 125 To that extent and in those terms, the plea in question must be held to be admissible. The applicants cannot however later change the content and scope of that plea in law to the point of making it a new plea in law and infringing the rights of the defence. Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure provides that no new pleas in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure. However, a plea which amplifies a plea put forward previously, whether directly or by implication, in the original application, and which is closely connected therewith, must be declared admissible (Case T‑252/97 Dürbeck v Commission [2000] ECR II‑3031, paragraph 39). 126 First, it is clear from the application that the applicants contest the classification of the trade contributions as State aid, inter alia because those contributions are not in the nature of State resources. In that context, they state that the State cannot make use of the contributions in question. Secondly, they argue that it cannot be imputed to the State is restricted very clearly to the inter-branch contributions intended to finance the advertising and for operating certain AOCs. The applicants state in that regard in their reply that their action is ‘limited to contesting imputability to the State solely of the inter-branch contributions in question under Article [1(3)] of the operative part of the decision’. 127 The Commission cannot claim that it has not been able to present a defence on these points. Paragraphs 59 to 77 of its defence and 52 to 60 and 67 of its rejoinder are, moreover, evidence to the contrary. 128 The plea alleging infringement of Article 87(1) EC is accordingly admissible. – The substance of the plea alleging infringement of Article 87(1) EC 129 According to settled case-law, for advantages to be capable of being categorised as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, they must, first, be granted directly or indirectly through State resources, and, second, be imputable to the State (see Case C‑482/99 France v Commission (‘Stardust’) [2002] ECR I‑4397, paragraph 24, and case-law cited). 130 It is clear from the case-law of the Court that only advantages granted directly or indirectly through State resources are held to be aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. The distinction made in that provision between aid granted ‘by a Member State’ and aid granted ‘through State resources’ does not signify that all advantages granted by a State, whether financed through State resources or not, constitute aid, but is intended merely to bring within that definition both advantages which are granted directly by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State (see PreussenElektra, paragraph 108 above, paragraph 58, and case-law cited). 131 It must be stated at the outset that, to the extent that, in accordance with various arguments put forward by the applicants in the application and in the reply as well as in the summary contained in the application, the aim of this plea is to contest the classification of the contributions in question as State aid, it must be rejected. 132 In fact, nowhere does the decision classify those contributions as State aid (see also, in relation to the admissibility of the action, paragraphs 38 and 40 above). As is clear from the operative part, it is the measures implemented in the form of the set-aside premium, the conversion plan conversion and the advertising and operating certain AOCs which are classified as State aid. In recital 74 of the preamble to the decision, the contributions in question are considered by the Commission to be parafiscal charges, that is, public resources. Since the contributions in question serve to finance the measures referred to, the decision draws the inference that the criterion of financing by public resources is satisfied. 133 For the sake of completeness the answer would not be different if the written pleadings of the applicants were to be interpreted as meaning that the measures in question are not State aid because they are not financed from public resources and, because some of them are not imputable to the State. 134 As regards the latter issue, it is clear from the formulation of the second part of this plea and from the clarifications added by the applicants in their reply that they do not contest the imputability to the State of the inter-branch contributions intended to finance the advertising and operating certain AOCs. 135 Since it is not open to the applicants to challenge the section of the operative part of the decision relating to those initiatives (see paragraphs 34 to 48 above), the argument pursued on this part of the plea cannot succeed. 136 In addition, the applicants do not contest the imputability to the State of the set-aside premium. Accordingly there remains to be determined only the question whether the Commission was entitled to find in the decision that the set-aside premium was an advantage financed by State resources. 137 In support of their opposing arguments, the applicants and the Commission each rely principally on one judgment of the Court. The former base their case on Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, and claim, by analogy, that the measure in question was not ‘funded by resources made available to the national authorities’. The Commission, for its part, draws on Stardust, paragraph 129 above, and contends that the CIVDN’s resources ‘fell within the control of the State and were therefore at its disposal’, the State being ‘perfectly capable, by exercising its dominant influence over [the undertaking], of directing the use of [its] resources’. 138 It must be observed as a preliminary point that the applicants challenge the scope which the Commission seeks to attribute to Stardust, since in their opinion the Court’s analysis in that case is made ‘in a context peculiar to the facts of the case, which is distinguished by the fact that the bodies which granted the financial assistance to Stardust were public undertakings’. The applicants observe that the CIVDN is a legal person governed by private law. 139 However, according to settled case-law, it is not appropriate to distinguish between cases in which aid is granted directly by the State and those in which it is granted by a public or private body designated or established by that State (Case 57/86, Greece v Commission, [1988] ECR 2855, paragraph 12; PreussenElektra, paragraph 108 above, paragraph 58; Case C‑126/01 GEMO [2003] ECR I‑13769, paragraph 23). As is shown in Stardust, paragraph 129 above, and Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, the status of the body or undertaking in question is not regarded as a determining factor for the application of the rules of the Treaty on State aid. The mere fact that a public body is involved does not entail the automatic application of Article 87 EC, just as the fact that the measures are taken by a private body does not preclude its application. 140 As regards the set-aside premium, a contribution was established by Decision 96-1 of the CIVDN of 5 July 1996 with a view to financing it. In order to determine whether the Commission was entitled to classify that contribution as a public resource on the ground, in particular, that it required the adoption of an act by a public authority for its full impact to be felt, the role of the State in that committee must be examined. 141 An examination of Law No 200 of 2 April 1943 on the creation of an inter-branch committee for natural sweet wines and liqueur wines with a registered designation of origin, as amended by Decree No 55‑1064 of 20 October 1956, confirms the predominant role of the State in that committee. 142 Article 3, replaced by Article 2 of Decree 56-1064, provides that the CIVDN consists, firstly, of 14 representatives of trade unions and trade organisations who are the most representative of wine producers and cooperatives involved in wine-making, wine storage and wine distribution and, secondly, of 14 representatives of trade unions and trade organisations who are the most representative of wholesale merchants. Its members are appointed for three years by order of the Secretary of State for Agriculture, on the nomination of the trade unions and bodies concerned. 143 A certain number of representatives of the State may participate at deliberative proceedings without having the right to vote. 144 It is clear from Article 4, now Article 3 of Decree 56-1064, that the State, through its representative, occupies alternatively the post of president or vice‑president of the executive board. 145 The director is appointed and relieved of office by order of the Secretary of State for Agriculture (Article 5, now Article 4 of Decree 56‑1064). 146 Article 6 of Decree 56‑1064 states : ‘A government commissioner, designated by the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Food Supplies shall attend all deliberative proceedings. If proposals submitted to him by the [CIVDN] or by its executive board have been adopted by two-thirds of the members present, the commissioner may, in accordance with guidelines he will have received, either immediately approve the proposed decisions, or submit them for approval to the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Food Supplies’. 147 Article 7 of Decree 56‑1064 provides: ‘Proposals of the [CIVDN] or of its executive board shall become mandatory for all members of the trades concerned as soon as they have received, as appropriate, the approval of Secretary of State for Agriculture and Food Supplies or of the government commissioner. … They shall become enforceable as soon as they have been officially notified to the corporate bodies of the trades which are members of the [CIVDN]. When the national interest is at stake, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Food Supplies shall, if he deems it necessary, take in the place and stead of the [CIVDN] the decisions which the latter has refused to take, after having received the request to do so notified by the government commissioner.’ 148 Article 8 of Decree 56‑1064 provides that the mission of the CIVDN is to take, in accordance with government guidelines, a number of general measures listed there, including the organisation and control of the production of wines in specified vineyards. 149 Under Article 10 of Decree 56‑1064, in the event of non-compliance with decisions of the CIVDN, various penalties may be imposed, as appropriate, by the prefect of the department where the offender resides or by the Minister for Agriculture, upon proposal by the prefect, namely fines, withdrawal of the ‘carte professionnelle’ (trade licence), or confiscation by the State of all or part of the goods. 150 In the case of the general measures referred to in Article 8, Article 11 authorises the Minister of Agriculture, on the proposal of the government commissioner, to take the place of the executive board and to impose on it a decision the board has refused to take, despite a due request to do so having been notified to it by the government commissioner. 151 Article 14 provides that the CIVDN’s budget is to be submitted for the approval by the same minister. It also states the ‘the costs relating to administrative expenses of the [CIVDN] or the achievement of its trade objectives shall be covered by charges levied either on the sale of goods, or by other means. The [CIVDN] may collect those charges only after being authorised to do so [by] an order of the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Food Supplies and of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and Finance’. 152 Article 15 of Decree 56‑1064 provides that financial management is subject to the control of the State and that the funds available are to be deposited at the Treasury or at the (regional branch of the agricultural mutual credit fund crédit agricole) where the CIVDN has its head office. 153 Lastly, the CIVDN’s internal rules and regulations are subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture. 154 It follows from the above that, in addition to the State presence in the committee and in its executive board, all the essential acts of the CIVDN must be authorised by the State. In particular, the CIVDN cannot either collect contributions or charges or make use of their revenue without State agreement. The State can even impose its own decisions on CIVDN. 155 The provisions of that law do not substantiate the argument, put forward by the applicants, that the management of CIVDN is solely trade managed and that the action of the State is limited to ‘a subsequent power of review of the regularity of the CIVDN’s financial management’. 156 Even if it were established that, as claimed by the applicants, ‘in reality the role of government is limited to giving mandatory force to decisions taken by the trades’, the fact remains that, as a matter of law, the powers of the State extend much further. In recital 74 of the preamble to the decision states correctly that, in the present case, the contributions ‘required the adoption of an act by a public authority for their full impact to be felt’. In the context of this case, as stated in Stardust, paragraph 129 above, the State is perfectly capable, by exercising its dominant influence over the CIVDN, of directing the use of its resources in order, as occasion arises, to finance specific advantages in favour of certain undertakings. 157 In that regard it must be added that, irrespective of their content, the orders of the French Minister for Economic Affairs of 31 March 2006 relied on by the applicants cannot prove in this case that the State had no opportunity to make use of the funds collected by the inter-branch organisations. Those orders post-date both the facts at issue and the decision. 158 Further, Pearleand Others, paragraph 95 above, on which the applicants rely, is of no assistance as it cannot be applied to the present case. 159 First, it is true that initially the funds used by the CIVDN in order to pay the set-aside premium had to be collected from its members by means of an inter-branch contribution (see Decision 96-1 of 5 July 1996). The revenue from that contribution had to be earmarked in a special fund managed by the CIVDN and was intended solely for payment of the set-aside premium to the producer entitled to it (Article 5 of that decision). 160 However, it is clear from the declarations of the complainant to be found in recitals 43 and 44 of the preamble to the decision, confirmed in the transcript of proceedings at the CIVDN’s general assembly of 20 December 2000, produced by the Commission as an annex to its defence, that, first, in 1999, the set-aside premium was paid using a subsidy of FRF 2 million from the general council of the Eastern Pyrenees and, secondly, the set-aside premium was financed from funds which did not come solely from the collection of the contribution provided for, but were also, in part, debited from the CIVDN’s general budget. Those facts have, moreover, not been disputed by the applicants. As in Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] ECR 595, referred to in paragraph 38 of Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, aid has been granted directly by the State. 161 Accordingly, it is not possible in the present case to declare, following Pearle and Others, that since the costs incurred by the organisation were offset in full by the levies imposed on the undertakings benefiting therefrom, the CIVDN’s action did not tend to create an advantage which would constitute an additional burden for the State or that organisation (see, to that effect, Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, paragraph 36). 162 Secondly, as stated in recital 74 of the preamble to the decision, in the present case, contrary to the situation in Pearle and Others, it has not been demonstrated that the beneficiaries of the aid are always those liable to pay the charges. It is clear from Decision 96-1 of the CIVDN of 5 July 1996 that the contribution was calculated according to the volumes of ‘Rivesaltes’ and ‘Grand-Roussillon’ wine marketed in 1995 (Article 2), whereas the amount of the set-aside premium was FRF 5 000 per annum and per hectare set aside (Article 6). Certain undertakings might therefore make substantial contributions, but might not receive the slightest set-aside premium. 163 Thirdly, contrary to the situation in Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, nor does it follow from the case file that the initiative for the organisation and implementation of the set‑aside premium was attributable to some private association and not to the CIVDN, which ‘served merely as a vehicle for the levying and allocating of resources collected’ (see, to that effect, Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, paragraph 37). It must be borne in mind that the applicants do not contest the imputability of the set-aside premium to the State. 164 Lastly, as to the idea that, in relation to the set-aside premium, the resources were, as in the situation in Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, collected ‘for a purely commercial purpose’ which ‘had nothing to do with a policy determined by the … authorities’ (Pearle and Others, paragraph 95 above, paragraph 37), the applicants themselves declare the contrary to be the case. In paragraph 112 of their reply, they maintain that ‘it cannot seriously be disputed that the establishment of the contributions which financed the publicity and promotion initiatives … are in no way, unlike in this respect the measures in question under the Rivesaltes Plan, part of a policy pursued by the State’. The applicants accordingly acknowledge that the set-aside premium did form part of a policy suggested by the State. 165 All the foregoing considerations lead the Court to conclude that the Commission was correct to hold that the set-aside premium was financed from State resources. 166 Accordingly, even taking the applicants’ written pleadings to mean that they claim that the measures in question were not financed through State resources, the second plea must also be rejected. 167 The action must therefore be dismissed as in part inadmissible and, for the remainder, unfounded. Costs 168 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful and the Commission has applied for costs, the applicants must be ordered to bear both their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. 169 Pursuant to Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the French Republic is to bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs; 3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. Vilaras Dehousse Šváby Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 September 2007. E. Coulon M. Vilaras Registrar President * Language of the case: French.