Case T-573/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — TF1 v Commission
Date: 2008-12-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual industry, disclosure of information, television

C 55/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.3.2009

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17 December 2008 — TF1 v
Commission

— Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2008 in
the proceedings ‘State aid C 36/2007 — State aid to
Deutsche Post AG’ concerning the information injunction;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-573/08)

(2009/C 55/75)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

in State

The action is directed against the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities (C (2008) 6468) of 30 October
2008 by which,
aid procedure C 36/2007
(ex NN 25/2007), the Commission required Germany, pursuant
to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), to send all
the documents, information and data required in order to assess
the costs and revenues of Deutsche Post in the period from
1989 to 2007.

The applicant raises two pleas in law.

Parties

Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (represented by: J.-P.
Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Commission of 16 July 2008 in
Case N 279/2008-France (Capital endowment for France
Télévisions);

— order the Commission to initiate the formal

investigation

procedure under Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid;

By the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the information
injunction infringes essential rules as to form.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— The requirements as to the valid setting of a time-limit and
as to a ‘reminder, allowing an appropriate additional period’
in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 10(3) of Regulation
No 659/1999 were not satisfied.
the
applicant observes that the period allowed in the informa-
tion injunction itself was disproportionate.

In the alternative,

— Furthermore, the information injunction does not safeguard
the protection enshrined in Article 287 EC of Deutsche Post
AG's business secrets, since the data would presumably be
passed to an external undertaking — which might also be
working for competitors of Deutsche Post AG — for
analysis, and the Commission refuses to provide further
details in that regard.

By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the informa-
tion injunction also infringes Articles 87(1) EC and 86(2) EC in
conjunction with the principles of proportionality and legal
certainty, since the data requested are not necessary for the
assessment in terms of State-aid law of any of the three State
measures at issue in the proceedings.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999
L 83, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applies for the annulment of Commission Deci-
sion C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008, by which the
Commission had held State aid in the form of a capital endow-
ment of EUR 150 million in favour of France Télévisions to be
compatible with the common market. The applicant requests in
that context the initiation of the formal investigation procedure
in accordance with Article 88(2) EC.

its application,
In support of
substance of the case, two pleas:

the applicant asserts, on the

— based on the finding that there were serious difficulties in
response to which the Commission should have been
investigation procedure in
required to initiate the formal
accordance with Article 88(2) EC, those serious difficulties
being demonstrated by (i) the fact that the decision was
materially inaccurate, (ii) the inadequacy of the information
at the Commission's disposal and (iii) the unusually short
duration, as well as the circumstances, of the preliminary
phase of investigation;

— relating to a failure to state grounds,

in so far as the
Commission did not collect all the necessary information
and/or did not take into consideration the information at its
disposal and in so far as the Commission's reasoning in
paragraph 23 of the contested decision could depart from
its previously adopted position without
the Commission
nonetheless justifying that departure.