CELEX: C1995/159/57
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 April 1995 by Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-106/95)

No C 159/28        TEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 24 April 1995 by Fédération Française             Moreover, the decision in question breaches Community
des Sociétés d'Assurances and Others against the                    law rules . Both the French authorities and the Commission
        Commission of the European Communities                      consider that they are able to justify the favourable
                       ( Case T-106/95 )                            treatment accorded to the post office by virtue of public
                                                                    interest requirements and in particular of the requirements
                         ( 95/C 159/57 )                            of providing a service throughout the whole of the national
                                                                    territory and of participation in regional development. In
               (Language of tbe case: French)                       accordance with Community law, the legality of State aid
                                                                    under Community law must be examined solely in the light
An action against the Commission of the European                    of its effect on trade and not of its aim. The applicants
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   observe in that respect that, according to the case-law of the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 1995 by            Court of Justice :
Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances , whose
registered office is at Paris, Union des Sociétés Etrangères        ( a ) the intended aims of State aid cannot suffice to justify
d'Assurances, whose registered office is at Paris, Groupe des              granting such aid to an undertaking even when it is
Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles, whose registered office is in              entrusted with the operation of services of general
Noisy-le-Grand ( France ), Fédération Nationale des                        interest;
Syndicats d'Agents Généreaux d'Assurances, whose
registered office is at Paris , Fédération Française des
Courtiers    d'Assurances      et de    Réassurances,    whose      ( b ) the fiscal nature or social aim of aid granted cannot
registered office is at Paris, and Bureau International des                suffice to shield it from Article 92 of the Treaty;
Producteurs d'Assurances et de Réassurances , whose
registered office is at Paris, represented by Dominique             (c ) it is not even necessary for trade between Member
Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                States to have been affected, since a measure contrary to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                        Community law must be prohibited where it has an
Zithe .                                                                    influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the
                                                                           pattern of trade .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 February               Finally, the applicants point out the inconsistency of the
    1995 ,                                                          Commission itself when, after having considered that the
                                                                    tax advantage at issue does not go beyond that which may
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                       be justified in order to ensure the achievement of public
                                                                    interest obligations which the post office is required to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 perform, it nonetheless requests the French authorities to
                                                                    ensure that the accounting organization of the post office
The applicants, several associations representing the               observes Community law rules .
insurance sector, challenge the decision of the Commission
of 21 February 1995 , since they consider compatible with
Article 92 of the EC Treaty the provisions contained in the
French Law of 2 July 1 9 90 on the reform of the organization
of the French public post office and France Telecom . That
Law, which conferred upon the post office new and
particularly extensive powers in matters of financial
insurance services, had in particular the effect of giving it the
means of intervening in every field of insurance.                   Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Michel Pouzol against
                                                                         the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Furthermore, the abovementioned Law confers on the post                                      (Case T-115/95 )
office a considerable number of advantages, as regards both                                    ( 95/C 159/58 )
taxation ( deferred payment of company tax, tax on salaries
and local direct charges) and procurement of its assets .
According to the applicants, the whole of these measures                              (Language of tbe case: French)
constitute a substantial advantage for the post office by
comparison with the charges which normally burden the
budget of every newly incorporated insurance undertaking            An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
and every newly created broking company governed by the             Communities was brought before the Court of First
general provisions .                                                Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 1995 by
                                                                    Michel Pouzol, residing at Bertrange ( Grand Duchy of
First, they argue that the analysis and the methodology             Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
chosen by the Commission in the disputed decision are               Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
highly questionable inasmuch as they rely on information            address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari,
provided by the French authorities themselves with regard            1 Rue Glesener .
to the assessment of the obligations flowing from the task of
providing public services and the extra cost which they claim
they generate.                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :