Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010TA0154

    Case T-154/10: Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — France v Commission (State aid — Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Burden of proving the existence of State aid — Advantage)

    SL C 343, 10.11.2012, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    10.11.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 343/14


    Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — France v Commission

    (Case T-154/10) (1)

    (State aid - Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Burden of proving the existence of State aid - Advantage)

    2012/C 343/21

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: French Republic (represented: initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, and subsequently by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

    Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

    Re:

    Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C 56/07 (formerly E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1).

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


    Top