Case C-536/12 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission
Date: 2012-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, maritime cabotage, market economy, selling price, services of general interest








C_2013032EN.01000702.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/7





Appeal brought on 26 November 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission

(Case C-536/12 P)
2013/C 32/10
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the General Court on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v European Commission, in so far as it annulled the second and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning the measures C-58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM); (1)











—


rule definitively on the dispute or refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises four grounds of appeal seeking that the judgment of the General Court be set aside.
Firstly, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in holding that the Commission erred in law in finding that the sale of the Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée at a negative price of EUR 158 million did not constitute State aid. The appellant criticises the General Court for having considered that the Commission could not take into account the risk that the brand image of the State, as a global economic actor in the private sector, would be adversely affected, in the context of the reasonable private investor test, in order to determine whether the payment of supplementary redundancy payments to SNCM’s employees in the event of the liquidation of that undertaking would also have been made by a reasonable private investor. In addition, it criticises the General Court for having demanded evidence from the Commission that the payment of supplementary redundancy payments constituted a sufficiently established practice, or even the normal practice, among private entrepreneurs.
Secondly, the General Court committed an error in law derived from the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU by holding that the Commission did not take into account all the relevant evidence in its analysis of the comparability of the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million made by SNCM’s public shareholder and the capital contribution of EUR 26,25 million made by the private purchasers, and that the Commission ought to have taken into account the clause to cancel the sale conceded to the private purchasers in the context of SNCM’s privatisation.
Thirdly, the General Court infringed Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, read in combination with the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, and Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by treating as State aid the measures involving aid to individuals amounting to EUR 38,5 million, without ascertaining, in the alternative, whether that measure met the reasonable private investor test, as maintained by the Commission in the contested decision and the French Government at the hearing before the General Court.
Lastly, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in approving the balance for restructuring under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Guidelines.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 225, p. 180