Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:11
Date: 2001-01-11
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary 124. The Commission's decision is justified on three grounds. The French Republic failed to provide an adequate restructuring plan, the long-term viability of Nouvelle Filature Lainière de Roubaix after restructuring was not demonstrated and the aid granted was not in proportion to the company proprietors' contribution to the restructuring measures. The French Republic was unable to disprove the Commission's findings on those issues. VI - Costs 125. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party's pleading. France is therefore ordered to pay the costs. VII - Conclusion 126. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should: (1) dismiss the application (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs. 1: - Original language: German. 2: - Notified by letter of 17 November under document number C(1998) 3515, published in OJ 1999 L 145, p. 18. 3: - Commission Notice OJ 1994 C 368, p. 12. The Commission has since relied on its new notice 'Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty' OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2. 4: - See point 10 in this connection. 5: - Published in OJ 1997 C 392, p. 6. 6: - Cited in footnote 1. 7: - These FRF 7.77 million (= 35% of the investment premium of FRF 22 million) have been approved as regional aid (author's note). 8: - Case 78/76 Steinike und Weinlig v Germany [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 8 and Case 74/76 Iannelli v Meroni [1977] ECR 557, paragraphs 11 and 12. 9: - Case T-214/95 Vlaams Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, paragraph 89. 10: - Case T-149/95 Ducros v Commission [1997] ECR II-2031, paragraph 63, with further references. 11: - Case 310/85 Deufil v Commission [1987] ECR 901, paragraph 22; see also Ducros, cited in footnote 10, at paragraph 61, with further references. 12: - See, for instance, Case C-313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraph 32 et seq. 13: - Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307. 14: - Joined Cases C-324/90 and C-342/90 Germany and Pleuger Worthington v Commission [1994] ECR I-1173. 15: - Commission Decision 96/179/EC of 31 October 1995 enjoining the German Government to provide all documentation, information and data on the new investment projects of the Volkswagen Group in the new German Länder and on the aid that is to be granted to them (C 62/91 ex NN 75, 77, 78 and 79/91), OJ L 53, p. 50. 16: - Cited in footnote 13. 17: - Cited in footnote 14. 18: - Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097, paragraph 20. 19: - Boussac (cited in footnote 13, at paragraph 19 et seq.). 20: - See also Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 35. 21: - Cited in footnote 13. 22: - Cited in footnote 14, at paragraph 25 et seq. 23: - Case C-364/90 (cited in footnote 18, at paragraph 20). 24: - See in that regard point 53 et seq. below. 25: - See point 42 above. 26: - See point 12 above. 27: - Cited in footnote 14. 28: - In this regard the notice published in OJ 1989 C 309, p. 3 contains even less information than the Commission's letter of 3 May 1989 to the Member State concerned. 29: - This conforms to the Commission's recent practice; see Decision 2000/194/EC of 14 July 1999 on aid granted by Germany to Weider Leder GmbH (Weida), Thuringia (notified under document number C(1999) 3441), OJ 2000 L 61, p. 4, No 52 and Decision 1999/589/EC of 22 December 1998 on aid granted by the Republic of Austria to Ergee Textilwerk GmbH (notified under document number C(1998) 4568), OJ L 227, p. 1, section 1. 30: - Cited in footnote 15. 31: - Case C-16/90 Nölle [1991] ECR I-5163, paragraph 17. 32: - Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytravel and Brink's France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63 with further references there. 33: - Case 41/69 Chemiefarma [1970] ECR 661, paragraphs 79 to 81. 34: - Cited in footnote 13. 35: - Cited in footnote 14. 36: - See in that regard point 76 above. 37: - See judgment in Case 367/95 P Commission v Sytravel and Brink's France, cited in footnote 32, at paragraph 64, and judgments of the Court of First Instance in Case T-188/98 Kuijer v Council [2000], not yet published in the Court Reports, para 44. et seq., and in Case T-95/94 Sytravel and Brinks v Commission [1995] ECR II-2651, paragraph 62. 38: - See above, point 81. 39: - See second paragraph of first indent under Section 2 of the Commission's decision, cited in footnote 2. 40: - Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-149/95 Ducros, cited in footnote 10, at paragraph 61. 41: - For the amounts concerned, see point 7 above. 42: - See also the 1999 Guidelines, cited in footnote 3, at paragraphs 40 et seq. and Commission Decision of 13 June 2000 on the State aid implemented by Germany in favour of Wildauer Kurbelwelle GmbH (notified under document number C(2000)(1660), OJ 2000 L 287, p. 51, paragraph 51. 43: - Cited in footnote 3, at paragraph 40. 44: - Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to Seleco SpA (notified under document number C (1999) 1524), OJ 2000 L 227, p. 24, paragraph 105 et seq. 45: - Cited in footnote 42, paragraph 51. 46: - See above point 7.