CELEX: 62013CN0621
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-621/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Orange, formerly France Télécom against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-258/10 Orange v Commission

8.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 39/8
            
         Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Orange, formerly France Télécom against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-258/10 Orange v Commission
   (Case C-621/13 P)
   2014/C 39/15
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: H. Viaene and D. Gillet, avocats)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Départment des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Case T-258/10 Orange v European Commission and, if the Court considers that it has available to it all the evidence necessary in order to give final judgment on the substance of the case, annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 relating to compensation for costs for a public service delegation for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Départment des Hauts-de-Seine (State Aid N 331/2008 — France);
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for the proceedings to be continued;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission, the Départment des Hauts-de-Seine and Sequalum to pay the entire costs of the action, except those costs incurred by the French Republic;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that the French Republic is to bear its own costs.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons, based on Article 36 and the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, because it ruled inadequately and in a contradictory way on a ground relating to absence of market deficiency. The appellant complains, in particular, that the General Court rejected its argument that the THD 92 project could not be considered to be a service of general economic interest based on the absence of market deficiency arising from the presence of competing operators offering analogue services.
   Second, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of when the existence of such a market deficiency must be determined. Thus, according to the appellant, it is at the moment when the measure intended to address a market deficiency is adopted that the existence of that deficiency must be determined.
   Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of paragraph 78 of the Guidelines (1) by considering that the ‘detailed analysis’ to which every State Aid envisaged in a traditional black area must be subject, does not entail the initiation of the formal investigation procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU.
   Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court’s finding, according to which the areas in which the internal rate of return is between 9 and 10,63 % are not the subject of compensation, is manifestly incorrect. The legal consequences drawn from that finding by the General Court, namely the absence of overcompensation, and consequently, compliance of the project at issue with the third criterion of the judgment in Altmark, are therefore incorrect.
   
      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (OJ 2009, C 235, p. 7).