15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

(Case T-478/18)

(2018/C 373/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Hacène Bezouaoui (Avanne, France) and HB Consultant (Beure, France) (represented by: J.-F. Henrotte and N. Neyrinck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Declare the present action admissible and well founded. Consequently,

—Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 2075 final of 10 April 2018 on Case SA.46897 (2018/NN) — France presumed aid — CACES [(Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate)];

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘causality assessment’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, in that the reimbursement of costs of construction plant driving safety training by State-authorised collecting bodies (Organismes paritaires de collecte agréés, OPCAs) means a use of State resources, the result of a measure attributable to the State. Thus, the applicants argue that the decision of which they seek the annulment disregards the case-law in Pearle (judgment of 15 July 2004, Pearle and Others, C-345/02, EU:C:2004:448).

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘advantage’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken by the French State in the present case give an advantage to undertakings which provides training called ‘CACES®’ (Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate), as opposed to those providing training called ‘PCE®’ (Machinery Driving Licence).

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘selectivity’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken are selective in nature. This plea in law is divided into three parts:

—first part, alleging that the OPCAs are not entitled to discriminate between the various training courses which answer the same need and which have all been recognised by the French State;

—second part, alleging that the interventions made by the French State have the effect of deceiving the OPCAs as to the training arrangements which meet the legal requirements and which may be reimbursed;

—third part, alleging that the difference in treatment of the two training systems (CACES® and PCE®) is not justified by the nature or general scheme of a reference system.