Action brought on 13 October 2004 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-425/04)

(2005/C 19/64)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 October 2004 by the French Republic, represented by its Agents Ronny Abraham, Géraud de Bergues and Stéphanie Ramet, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on an infringement of essential procedural requirements and the rights of the defence. According to the applicant, the Commission based its decision on factors, namely ministerial proposals of 12 July 2002, which are outside the scope of the procedure as defined by the decision to open the procedure. The applicant claims that the Commission should have extended the procedure by adopting a new decision to open it.

The applicant also relies on an error of law in relation to the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly applied the principle of the private investor who is fully informed of the conditions of a market economy. According to the applicant, since the ministerial proposals did not amount to a commitment on the part of the State and could not be categorised as State aid, the principle of the fully-informed private investor was not applicable. The applicant also maintains that the Commission wrongly held there to be aid on the basis of two separate events which, taken separately, it would have to accept did not comprise the elements necessary for the categorisation of State aid to apply. Those events are the statements of July 2002 and the draft shareholder's advance of December 2002.

Thirdly, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment when it took the view that an analysis of the contents of the interview of 12 July 2002 allowed it to be concluded that the State was giving an undertaking as a shareholder, which would have had an influence on the markets in December.

Lastly, the applicant submits that the reasoning adopted contains contradictions and inadequacies which lead to the contested decision being vitiated on the ground of a lack of proper reasoning.