27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/30

(Case T-520/09)

2010/C 80/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne Billancourt, France), Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France), Canal + SA (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 September 2009 in State Aid Case C 27/09 (ex N 34/A/09 and N 34/B/09) — Budgetary grant in favour of France Télévisions (2010-2012) in so far as it decides to deem the budgetary grant notified of EUR 450 million for 2009, in favour of France Télévisions, compatible with the EC Treaty under Article 86(2) thereof;

—Order the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure into the aid, laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU;

—Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Decision C(2009) 6693 final of 1 September 2009, issued by the Commission following the procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108 TFEU), by which the Commission deemed a budgetary grant, of a maximum amount of EUR 450 million for 2009 in favour of France Télévisions, compatible with the common market. The applicants request, against that background, that the formal investigation procedure be opened in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU.

In support of their claim, the applicants put forward a single plea alleging that there were serious difficulties in the face of which the Commission was required to open the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC (now Article 108(2) TFEU) and to invite interested parties to make observations.

The applicants assert that there were indications of serious difficulties resulting, on the one hand, from the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure and, on the other, from the content of the contested decision.

The excessive duration of the preliminary investigation procedure, the conduct of the procedure and the amount of the disputed funding are such as to show that there are serious difficulties concerning the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure.

The existence of indications of serious difficulties concerning the content of the contested decision is based on two factors. Firstly, it arises from the insufficient level of information, or even incorrect information, held by the Commission at the time of adoption of the contested decision and, secondly, from the fact that it was impossible for the Commission to conclude that the aid was compatible without an in-depth analysis, having regard to the structural concerns of over-compensation in the present case.