EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0135
Case T-135/12: Action brought on 2 March 2012 — France v Commission
Case T-135/12: Action brought on 2 March 2012 — France v Commission
Case T-135/12: Action brought on 2 March 2012 — France v Commission
IO C 174, 16.6.2012, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
16.6.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 174/24 |
Action brought on 2 March 2012 — France v Commission
(Case T-135/12)
2012/C 174/41
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011 declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, divided in two parts, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the Commission considered that the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom amounted to State aid. The applicant submits that:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in that the Commission made the compatibility of the measure in question conditional upon the requirement laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision being satisfied. The second plea is divided into two parts.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the Commission refused to accept a rate of 7 % as the discount rate for the exceptional flat-rate contribution. |