Action brought on 28 March 2006 — Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole v Commission

(Case T-98/06)

(2006/C 131/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir and P.-A. Jeanneney, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 25 January 2005 the French authorities informed the Commission of their decision to transfer the banking and insurance activities of La Poste to a subsidiary (Banque Postale), initially wholly owned by La Poste. On 21 July 2001, the applicant in the present action submitted a formal complaint to the Commission under Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (1), alleging that the State aid granted to Banque Postale was incompatible with the common market and requesting that the Commission initiate formal investigation proceedings.

In a decision of 21 December 2005, the Commission stated that the transferring of financial activities to a subsidiary does not confer an economic advantage on Banque Postale and that the measures relating to the creation and operation of this subsidiary do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. That is the decision against which the present action is brought.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first alleging a breach of formal legality, i.e. breach of Regulation No 659/1999 by the Commission in taking a decision to refer certain measures back for further consideration and breach by the Commission of Article 88(2) EC in refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

In its second plea the applicant asserts that by holding that the measures relating to the creation and operation of Banque Postale did not constitute State aid, the Commission made several errors of assessment regarding, inter alia, the economic advantages alleged in the complaint and that therefore it had misinterpreted Articles 87 and 88 EC.

In its third plea the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision is vitiated by formal defects owing to the Commission's failure to give reasons for its refusal to deal with the fundamental objections raised by the applicant in its complaint and also contradictory reasoning and lack of reasoning regarding certain specific points dealt with in the decision.

In its fourth plea the applicant alleges that the Commission breached Articles 43, 82 and 86 EC by failing to take account in its decision of the interference with freedom of establishment and free competition posed by the measures relating to the purpose of the State aid as inferred from Livret A.

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1