Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62012TN0018

Case T-18/12: Action brought on 9 January 2012 — Interbev v European Commission

IO C 80, 17.3.2012, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/21

Action brought on 9 January 2012 — Interbev v European Commission

(Case T-18/12)

2012/C 80/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association Nationale Interprofessionnelle du Bétail et des Viandes (Interbev) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Morrier and A. Bouviala, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011, State aid SA. 14974 (C 46/2003) — France — concerning the levies for INTERBEV, C(2011) 4923 final, not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in so far as it classifies as State aid the measures adopted by INTERBEV between 1996 and 2004 concerning publicity, promotion, technical assistance and research and development, on the one hand, and the extended voluntary levies which finance that action as State resources forming an integral part of the abovementioned State aid measures, on the other hand;

—

in the alternative, annul the European Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011, State aid SA. 14974 (C 46/2003) — France — concerning the levies for INTERBEV, C(2011) 4923 final, not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in so far as it encourages the national courts to order repayment of the extended voluntary levies (contested decision, recitals 201 and 202);

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning of the contested decision is insufficient in the light of Article 296 TFEU and with regard to the conditions concerning: (i) a selective economic advantage for operators in the cattle and sheep sectors; (ii) the State origin of the measures adopted by the applicant; (iii) the distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States; and (iv) the direct connection between the action taken by the applicant and the extended voluntary levies, also known as binding voluntary levies, charged between 1996 and 2004.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the measures adopted by the applicant between 1996 and 2004:

—

cannot be imputed to the State and the extended voluntary levies which financed them do not constitute State resources and cannot in any way be imputed to the French State;

—

do not constitute an economic advantage for one or more recipients;

—

do not affect, even potentially, competition or trade between Member States.

3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment with regard to the existence of a direct causal connection between the extended voluntary levies and the measures adopted by the applicant.

4.

Fourth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment with regard to the consequences which the national courts should draw from the lack of notification of the extended voluntary levies. The Commission, in paragraph 202 of the contested decision, encourages national courts to order repayment of the extended voluntary levies and to declare the aid invalid, and calls upon the persons affected to bring their cases before the national courts, whereas the national courts are not obliged to order repayment of the aid and the extended voluntary levies because such repayment would be inappropriate and impossible in practice.
Top