CELEX: C1996/133/64
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Crédit Lyonnais against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-31/96)

4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/31
Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Crédit Lyonnais                    Third, there has been a breach of essential procedural rules,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  in that the defendant institution relied on the confidentiality
                         ( Case T-31 /96 )                            of business secrets in order to justify the omissions in both
                                                                      the reasoning and the enacting terms of its decision .
                           ( 96/C 133/64 )
                                                                      According to the applicant, the interest which it has in
                                                                      knowing what commitments are to be fulfilled as a
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                        condition of the decision cannot be affected by the
                                                                      confidentiality of business secrets .
An action against the Commission of the European                      Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     of the EC Treaty and a manifest error of assessment,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1996                 inasmuch as the Commission regarded the reductions in
by Crédit Lyonnais , established in Paris, represented by             assets envisaged in the business plan communicated by the
Claude Lazarus, Chantai Momège and Jean-Pierre Jouyet,                French State to the Coimmission as inadequate and
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           demanded the sale of further assets . The applicant criticizes
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                         the Commission in that regard for its failure to take into
                                                                      consideration either the securization measures taken to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          reduce its assets or the fact that the business plan involved a
                                                                      significant and adequate programme for the sale of banking
— annul Article 2 ( c ) of Decision 95/547/EC ,                       subsidiaries . It points out in that regard that the aid in issue
                                                                      is to be applied solely for the purposes of stabilizing the
                                                                      financial situation of the Crédit Lyonnais and that, in any
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                      event, the banking sector cannot be treated in the same way
                                                                      as a sector in which there is excessive structural production
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       capacity.
The applicant, a French bank in receipt of State aid, contests
the decision of the Commission attaching certain conditions
to the grant of the aid, and requiring in particular a
reduction in its commercial capacity by means of a cut of at
least 35 % in its commercial operations abroad, including             Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Société Générale
its European banking network, by the end of 1998 in                     against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with the commitments given by France in that                                        ( Case T-32/96 )
regard .
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 133/65 )
The applicant maintains, first, that the contested decision
disregarded the fundamental principle of the right to a fair                          (Language of the case: French)
hearing, inasmuch as the applicant was never informed of,
nor heard in connection with, the additional commitments              An action against the Commission of the European
which the Commission required it to give , notwithstanding            Communities was brought before the Court of First
that those commitments were in fact given by the French               Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1996
State and the Commission made its decision conditional
                                                                      by Société Générale, established in Paris, represented by
on compliance with them . Furthermore , the documents                 Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
communicated by third party competitors, which were sent              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen,
to the Commission and played a decisive part in justifying            67 Rue Ermesinde .
those additional requirements, were not brought to its
knowledge either . The applicant emphasizes in that regard
that the right to a fair hearing must be respected in State aid       The applicant claims that the Court should :
proceedings , not only for the benefit of the person to whom
the decision is addressed but also for the benefit of the             — annul in its entirety the Commission Decision of 26 July
undertaking receiving the aid; and that it was all the more               1995 giving conditional approval to the aid granted by
necessary to respect that right since the commitments given               France to the bank Crédit Lyonnais,
by France are of crucial importance in the present case and
the    Commission     has     a wide discretion   in  State aid       — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
matters .                                                                 expenses incurred as a result of the present case .
The applicant pleads , second, breaches of the principle of           Pleas in law and main arguments
legal certainty and of the obligation imposed by Article 190
of the Treaty to provide a statement of reasons, in that              The applicant, one of the main competitors of the Crédit
the Commission has neither provided details of the                    Lyonnais and one of the banks most affected by the aid
commitments given by the French State nor justified the               granted by the French Government to the abovementioned
procedure to be followed in order to comply with the                  publicly owned bank, seeks the annulment of the
commitments described in Article 2 ( c ) of the contested             Commission's decision declaring that aid compatible with
decision .                                                            the common market. It argues that: