Action brought on 23 July 2007 — France v Commission

(Case T-279/07)

(2007/C 211/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, L. Butel and S. Ramet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 Final of 10 May 2007 declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, read together with Articles 43 and 49 EC, the provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier, which provides for special rights for three credit institutions, namely the Banque Postale, les Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel, for the distribution of the Livret A and Livret Bleu.

It relies on five pleas in law in support of its action.

The first plea alleges breach of the rights of the defence and disregard of the principle audi alteram partem.

Second, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the special rights in question constituted an obstacle to freedom of establishment and, consequently, were incompatible with Article 43 EC, without having demonstrated that those rights were not necessary and proportionate having regard to the overriding reasons of public interest, namely the objectives of access to housing and accessibility of banking services.

By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the third condition of Article 86(2) EC in finding that the service of general economic interest of accessibility of banks is intended only for persons having particular difficulties with access to basic banking services. It alleges that the Commission exceeded its powers of control of the definition of a service of general economic interest and, in any event, applied an overly restrictive definition of the mission of accessibility to banking. According to the applicant, the Commission also made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the second condition of Article 86(2) EC relating to the obligation to award the contract for a service by an act of State, and also in the application of the third and fourth conditions of that article. It alleges that the Commission made an error in the calculation of the impact of the abolishment of the special rights for the public finances and that it made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the principle of proportionality in finding that there are other, less restrictive means for the freedom of establishment than the granting of special rights in order to ensure balanced financing of services of general economic interest such as accessibility of banking and financing of social housing.

By its fourth plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the special rights in question were incompatible with Article 49 EC.

The fifth plea relied on by the applicant alleges a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.