CELEX: 62012TN0412
Language: en
Date: 2012-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-412/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — bpost v Commission

10.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 343/20
            
         Action brought on 17 September 2012 — bpost v Commission
   (Case T-412/12)
   2012/C 343/34
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: bpost (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Geradin, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Commission Decision of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C 20/2009) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost), which was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and (3) TFEU, manifest error of assessment and violation of the principle of equal treatment, by reason of incorrectly concluding that the retail network maintained by bpost was not a distinct Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’), and hence, finding that the compensation received from the Belgian State for the retail network constituted overcompensation.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU and manifest error of assessment, by reason of erroneously concluding that retail network costs, which are induced by the universal service obligation, should not be taken into account when calculating the amount of profits from the reserved area of the universal service that exceed the level of a reasonable profit.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) and violation of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, by reason of mistakenly concluding that net costs of non-mail SGEI’s must be offset with all the profits from the reserved area of the universal service, inasmuch as these profits exceed a reasonable profit.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) TFEU and infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity, by reason of the complete failure to carry forward bpost’s undercompensation accumulated over the years 1992-2005 to offset the amounts of bpost’s alleged overcompensation over the period 2006-2010.