CELEX: 62010CN0451
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-451/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08 M6 and TF1 v Commission

4.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/15
            
         Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08 M6 and TF1 v Commission
   (Case C-451/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/27
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (represented by: J.-P Hordies, lawyer)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Métropole télévision (M6), Canal +, European Commission, French Republic, France Télévisions
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08, M6 and TF1 v Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant relies on two pleas in support of its appeal.
   Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) criticises the General Court for having disregarded, confirming the Commission’s position in that respect, the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the compatibility with the common market of aid received by France Télévisions, difficulties which should have led to the initiation of a formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU. Therefore, by its first plea, the appellant relies on infringement of rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence in that the General Court requested the applicants to adduce evidence that serious doubts existed as to the actual use to which the endowment notified was put, rather than accepting the evidence that the aid had not been allocated.
   By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 106(2) TFEU holding, first, that the falls in advertising revenue, even caused by management errors, could be offset by State aid and, second, by stating that the application of Article 106(2) did not require an assessment of the efficient functioning of public service.