CELEX: 62010CA0399
Language: en
Date: 2013-03-19 00:00:00
Title: Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v European Commission and Others, European Commission, French Republic v Bouygues SA and Others (Appeals — State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Shareholder loan proposal — Public declarations by a member of the French Government — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Concept of economic advantage — Concept of commitment of State resources)

1.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/2
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v European Commission and Others, European Commission, French Republic v Bouygues SA and Others
   (Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P) (1)
   
   (Appeals - State aid - Financial measures in favour of France Télécom - Shareholder loan proposal - Public declarations by a member of the French Government - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Concept of economic advantage - Concept of commitment of State resources)
   2013/C 156/02
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   (Case C-399/10 P)
   
      Appellants: Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: C. Baldon, J. Blouet-Gaillard, J. Vogel, F. Sureau and D. Theophile, avocats)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues J. Gstalter, Agents), France Télécom SA, (represented: initially by S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats, and subsequently by S. Hautbourg and S. Quesson, avocats), Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)
   
      Intervener in support of the French Republic: Federal Republic of Germany, (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)
   (Case C-401/10 P)
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, Agents), Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: C. Baldon, J. Blouet-Gaillard, J. Vogel, F. Sureau and D. Theophile, avocats), France Télécom SA (represented: initially by S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats, and subsequently by S. Hautbourg and S. Quesson, avocats), Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)
   
      Intervener in support of the French Repubic: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Re:
   
   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2010 (Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04), by which the General Court annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11) — Declarations made by a government member and shareholder loan categorised as ‘aid’.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2010 in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04 France and Others v Commission;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Refers Cases T-425/04, T-444/04 and T-450/04 back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the pleas raised and the claims made before it on which the Court of Justice has not given a ruling;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.