16.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/74

—

(Official Journal of the European Union C 383 of 11 November 2019)

(2019/C 423/88)

The notice concerning Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission should read as follows:

‘Action brought on 25 September 2019 — JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission’

(Case T-642/19)

(2019/C 423/88)

Langue de procédure: le français

Parties

Applicant: JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Winckler and G. Babin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as it finds there to be incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 and 4, in so far as they order the recovery of that aid from JCDecaux by the Belgian State;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2019) 4466 final of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law committed by the Commission in finding that the operation by the applicant of certain advertising facilities covered by the contract of 16 July 1984 beyond their expiry date constitutes an advantage.

—The Commission wrongly found there to be an economic advantage despite the compensation mechanism operated by the City of Brussels pursuant to its obligation to safeguard the economic balance of the contract.

—The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and erred in law by finding that the applicant benefited from a saving in terms of rents and tax, which constituted an advantage.

—The contracts of 16 July 1984 and 14 October 1999 are not ‘purely commercial’, and the Altmark criteria were satisfied in the present case.

2.Second plea in law, in the alternative, claiming that the hypothetical State aid is compatible with the internal market, pursuant to the Communication from the Commission on the framework for SGEIs and the 2012 Decision on services of general economic interest.

3.Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of its obligation to state reasons in so far as concerns the assessment of the amount to be recovered.

—The Commission did not deal adequately with the evidence relied on by the parties, prejudged the amount of aid to be recovered in its press release, and infringed its own internal rules of procedure.

—It was impossible to quantify the amount of a hypothetical aid, thereby creating an obstacle to the recovery thereof.

4.Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the State aid found in the contested decision is time-barred.

—