CELEX: C1998/358/37
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 September 1998 by Société Générale against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-149/98)

C 358/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
recommendation was wrong in law. The Commission's                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reasoning in its decision is circular and flawed. The
Commission failed to apply correctly the analysis of the
Court of Justice in a leading case (1).                               The applicant contests the decision of the Commission
                                                                      authorising the grant of further aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais and
                                                                      re-evaluating the amount of aid resulting from the hive-off
The Commission failed to make any findings as to                      mechanism previously authorised on 26 July 1995.
whether or not discrimination existed in the relevant
period, although the facts set out in the complaint
provided support for such a finding. The Commission
                                                                      The applicant maintains that that aid is illegal under
further failed to draw all the inferences as regards the
                                                                      Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, since it was not notified in
effects which such discrimination may have had in the
                                                                      advance to the Commission. In the absence of exceptional,
relationship between purchasers and producers, as
                                                                      unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of CreÂdit
contemplated in Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, even
                                                                      Lyonnais which would have placed it in a significantly
before it took action. The applicant submits, in the
                                                                      worse situation, it was not open to the Commission,
alternative, that the Commission unlawfully failed to act
                                                                      without infringing the provisions of Article 92(3) and
pursuant to Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty. As a result,
                                                                      breaching its obligation to provide a statement of reasons,
the applicants are unable to seek any relief in the United
                                                                      to authorise in the present case grants of additional aid
Kingdom courts for the massive losses sustained during
                                                                      over and above those previously authorised.
the period 1984 to 1 April 1990. The contested decision
does not ensure effective protection as required by
Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty.
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested decision does
                                                                      not specify the amount of the aid with sufficient precision.
(1) Case C-18/94 of 2 May 1996, Hopkins and Others v.                 Moreover, the estimate of that amount is vitiated by an
    National Power and Power Gen, ECR I-2281.                         error of law and by a manifest error of assessment, which
                                                                      led the Commission to underestimate by nearly 50 billion
                                                                      francs the amount of aid actually granted to CreÂdit
                                                                      Lyonnais. Those errors prevented the Commission from
                                                                      correctly assessing the compatibility of the aid with the
                                                                      common market, as required by Article 92(3)(c) of the EC
                                                                      Treaty and the Guidelines for its application.
Action brought on 21 September 1998 by SocieÂteÂ
GeÂneÂrale against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                      The applicant further considers that the 1998 decision is
                       (Case T-149/98)                                illegal, inasmuch as it is based on the provisions of
                                                                      Article 2(c) of the decision of 26 July 1995, which are
                         (98/C 358/37)
                                                                      themselves unlawful under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      this meant that the Commission was constrained to limit
                (Language of the case: French)                        the inferences drawn by it from the deviation established
                                                                      in the evaluation of the cost of hive-off authorised in 1995
                                                                      to a mere increase in the quid pro quos to be provided by
An action against the Commission of the European                      CreÂdit Lyonnais, without examining any alternative
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     solutions.
Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
1998 by SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale, established in Paris, represented
by Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address             Contrary to the requirements imposed by the provisions of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                    Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty and by the Guidelines for
Manhaeve, 56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.                                   its application, the decision does not examine the
                                                                      alternative solutions which the French authorities could
                                                                      have adopted instead of granting additional aid: it rejects
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           from the outset, and without providing any reasons, the
                                                                      solution of a refusal to authorise the aid, even though that
                                                                      would have been more satisfactory from the point of view
Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty, the
                                                                      of its effects on competition.
     Commission's decision of 20 May 1998, published in
     the Official Journal of the European Communities of
     8 August 1998, authorising the grant by the French
     authorities of additional aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais;               In the alternative, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                      decision should be annulled inasmuch as it provides for
                                                                      quid pro quos which are inadequate to remedy the serious
Ð order repayment of the said aid;                                    distortions of competition resulting from the authorisation
                                                                      of the aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais as a whole, as required by
                                                                      Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
     expenses incurred in the course of the present
     proceedings.