Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/13

—

(Case C-559/12 P)

2013/C 32/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter, D. Colas, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2012 in Case T-154/10 France v Commission;

—rule definitively on the dispute in annulling Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C-56/07 (ex E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (1) or refer the case back to the General Court;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Government raises four grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the French Government claims, first, that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court clearly failed to have regard to the meaning of the pleas of that Government when it held that all the pleas put forward were essentially connected to the determination of the existence of an advantage, and not also to the determination of the existence of a transfer of State resources. Secondly, and as a consequence, the General Court infringed Article 44(1)(c) and Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court when it declared inadmissible the argument of the French Government alleging infringement of the condition relating to the existence of a transfer of State resources.

By its second ground of appeal, the French Government claims that the General Court erred in law when it held that the Commission established to the requisite legal standard the existence of a State guarantee granted to La Poste. In the alternative, that Government claims that the General Court distorted the evidence submitted to it in so far as it held that the evidence put forward by the Commission demonstrated that there was a State guarantee.

By its third ground of appeal, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law, failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons and, in the alternative, erred in the legal description of the facts, when it rejected the second plea raised by that Government alleging errors of fact and law so far as concerns the existence of an unlimited State guarantee in favour of La Poste. There are four parts to that ground of appeal.

Firstly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law when it held that the Commission had correctly concluded that French law did not exclude the possibility for the State to grant an implied guarantee to publicly owned industrial and commercial establishments (‘EPIC’).

Secondly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law when it approved the Commission’s findings concerning the consequences stemming from the application of Law No 80-539 of 16 July 1980 on the penalties imposed in administrative matters and on the execution of judgments by legal entities governed by public law.

Thirdly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law and failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons when it rejected the branch of that Government’s plea alleging that the Commission erred in so far as it equiparated the conditions for incurring State liability with a guarantee mechanism.

Fourthly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law when it rejected the branch of that Government’s plea alleging the Commission erred as regards the consequences of any transfer of the obligations of a dissolved EPIC.

By its fourth and last ground of appeal, the French Government claims that the General Court erred in law when it held that the Commission proved to the requisite legal standard the existence of an advantage which stems from the alleged State guarantee granted to La Poste. In the alternative, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted the evidence submitted to it when it held that the evidence put forward by that Government did not invalidate the Commission’s finding so far as concerns the existence of an advantage.

—

(1) OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1

—