CELEX: 62012TN0385
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-385/12: Action brought on 22 August 2012 — France Télécom v Commission

13.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 311/15
            
         Action brought on 22 August 2012 — France Télécom v Commission
   (Case T-385/12)
   2012/C 311/20
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011 declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging, principally, errors of law and assessment and infringement of the duty to state reasons since the Commission categorised as State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the reduction in the contribution to be paid to the State in respect of pensions awarded to officials of France Télécom. The applicant argues that the Commission made these errors:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           by finding that there was an economic advantage;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           by taking the view that the measure is selective;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           by taking the view that the measure is liable to distort competition; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           by finding that it was State aid despite the fact that the Commission accepts that the advantage was neutralised at least until 31 December 2010 by payment of an exceptional lump-sum contribution.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors of law and assessment in that the Commission made the compatibility of the alleged aid subject to the conditions laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision. The applicant submits that the Commission made these errors by taking the view that the applicant is subject to lower social charges than its competitors and by refusing to apply the precedent of ‘La Poste’ to the France Télécom proceeding.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors in assessment and infringement of the duty to state reasons in the assessment of the period during which the aid defined by the contested decision was neutralised by the exceptional lump-sum contribution. The applicant submits that the Commission made these errors:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           by including the charges of compensation and over-compensation in the calculation of the reduction in the charges which follows from the reduction in the employer’s contribution;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           by holding that the exceptional lump-sum contribution should be capitalised at the discount rate of 5,53 % instead of 7 %.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of the procedural rights of the applicant.