CELEX: C1996/133/65
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Société Générale against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-32/96)

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:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4 . 5 . 96
 1 , in adopting its decision, the Commission breached the              represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
     essential procedural requirements of the EC Treaty, of             Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
     the legislation implementing it and of the fundamental             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
     rules of procedure provided for therein, in that:                  Fort Rheinsheim .
     — it did not declare the aids granted to the Crédit
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
         Lyonnais in 1994 and 1995 illegal for want of
         notification,                                                  — annul the decision of the Disciplinary Board of
     — the summary nature of the advance notice given by it                 7 December 1 995 ,
         was such that third parties were not given an
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
         opportunity to intervene, as appropriate, in the
         procedure for the examination of those aids;                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2 , the Commission infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the EC               The applicant, who is already contesting the decision
     Treaty and the Community guidelines on State aid for               suspending him under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations
     rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty issued for          and the decision to bring the matter before the Disciplinary
     the implementation thereof, in that:                               Board ( ! ), is applying in the present case for annulment of
     — it declared the aid compatible with the common                   the opinion delivered by the Board in the context of the
         market, notwithstanding that that aid does not                 disciplinary proceedings initiated on 6 September 1995 .
         contribute to the development of any sector of
         activity,                                                      In support of his application, he relies on the following
                                                                        pleas:
     — it    did   not    take   the    common       interest  into
         consideration,                                                 1 , the report of the appointing authority, whereby the
                                                                            matter was brought before the Disciplinary Board
     — it based its analysis of the compatibility of the aid                pursuant to Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff
         under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) on the cost of that aid to the         Regulations, is improper, since it characterizes, that is to
         State and not on the amount of aid actually received               say, prejudges, the conduct alleged against the applicant,
         by the Crédit Lyonnais,                                            alleges as facts matters which have not been proven,
     — it did not seek any sound independent expert's                       contains allegations of fact which are manifestly
         report for the purposes of quantifying the amount of               incorrect, fails properly to provide a clear indication of
         the aid,                                                           the matters complained of and the circumstances in
                                                                            which they were allegedly committed, makes findings of
     — it committed a manifest error of assessment in                       fact in respect of matters on which the applicant has not
         quantifying the amount of the aid in a sum exceeding               been heard and, lastly, expatiates on the complaints set
         FF 32 billion, when that sum constitutes in itself the             out in the decision of 6 September 1995 ;
         largest sum ever granted by way of State aid,
                                                                        2 , the chairman of the Disciplinary Board did not appoint
     — it failed properly to assess the proportionality of the              one of its members to prepare a general report on the
         aid to the cost and advantages arising from the                    matter ;
         recovery of the Crédit Lyonnais,
                                                                        3 , the applicant was not advised of the hearing of witnesses
     — it declared the aid compatible notwithstanding that                  and did not receive the minutes of that hearing in good
         no restructuring plan was provided and the measures                time ;
         which the Commission required the Crédit Lyonnais
         to take cannot in any way be described as                     4 , the chairman took part in the deliberations of the
                                                                            Disciplinary Board;
         restructuring measures,
                                                                        5 , the opinion disregards the limits on the jurisdiction of
     — it did not propose any adequate counter-measures to
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board, breaches the right to a fair
         remedy the serious distortion of competition
                                                                            hearing and ignores the principle that proceedings
         resulting from the aid .
                                                                            should be conducted inter partes;
                                                                       6 , the opinion is insufficiently reasoned and breaches the
                                                                            conditions governing the application of Articles 11 , 12
                                                                            and 17 of the Staff Regulations, alternatively, is based
Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Bernard Connolly                         on an unlawful interpretation of those provisions;
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   7, in the alternative, the disciplinary measure proposed
                        ( Case T-34/96 )                                    by the Disciplinary Board breaches the principle of
                          ( 96/C 133/66 )                                   proportionality and is vitiated by a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment ;
                (Language of the case: French)                          8 , the proceedings are characterized in their entirety by a
                                                                            misuse of powers.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') Case T-203/95 ( OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p. 16 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1 996
by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),