CELEX: 62010TN0154
Language: en
Date: 2010-04-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-154/10: Action brought on 2 April 2010 — France v European Commission

19.6.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/43
            
         
      Action brought on 2 April 2010 — France v European Commission
      (Case T-154/10)
      (2010/C 161/69)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul in its entirety the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 133 Final of 26 January 2010 declaring the implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste under the provisions of French law concerning the legal consequences of its status as a legal entity governed by public law, the equivalent of a State-owned industrial and commercial establishment, to be State aid incompatible with the Common Market (State aid No C 56/2007 (formerly E 15/2005)).
      In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law alleging:
      
                  —
               
               
                  error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The Commission failed to comply with the evidential rules relating to State aid with regard both to the burden of proof and the standard of proof;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  errors in fact and in law in that the Commission found the existence of an implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  error in applying the concept of advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. First, the Commission erred in concluding that a guarantee created an advantage in favour of La Poste and, secondly, the Commission erred in considering that La Poste’s positive rating was a result of the existence of the alleged guarantee.