In Brief: T-135/12 and T-385/12 France v Commission and Orange v Commission

france telecom orange logo
The General Court confirmed that France granted State aid compatible with the internal market to France Télécom, in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Commission, and dismissed the actions.
 
The Press Release can be read here and the rulings (in French) here

Last Thursday 26th February the General Court gave its rulings in Cases T-135/12 and T-385/12 France v Commission and Orange v Commission. In both of these cases Commission decision 2012/540/EU finding that the financial measure reforming the way of financing pensions of civil servants working for France Telecom after its conversion into a public limited company (PLC) was compatible with the common market, subject to some conditions, was questioned by the applicants. The GC confirmed the Commission decision, finding that the Commission was entitled to decide that the financing mechanism was compatible State aid so long as the conditions imposed by it were applied.

In 1996 France Télécom was privatised at which point the financing mechanism for the pensions of its civil servants was changed. This change set the employer’s contribution (paid by France Télécom to the French State) at a ‘competitively fair rate’ to the ‘social security contributions and taxes payable by its competitors operating in the telecommunications sector’ and France Télécom paid an extra sum to the tune of €5.7 billion as a flat rate contribution to meet future retirement costs. The ‘competitively fair’ contribution did not however take into account extra-ordinary risks such as ‘unemployment and employee claims in cases of winding-up by court order’ which would normally have had to be taken into account.

In Decision 2012/540/EU of 2011, the Commission found that the financing measure was indeed State aid: until the conversion to a PLC the contribution paid by France Télécom to the State was reduced, and that aid ‘did not comply with the principle of proportionality, in so far as the financial contribution paid by France Télécom to the French State was not equal to the social security charges payable by the competitors of France Télécom’ because it did not take risks not common to ordinary employees and civil servants into account. The Commission decision required these be taken into consideration, at which point the financing could be considered as compatible aid.

These two cases before the GC questioned the Commission’s ability to make such a demand, however ultimately the Court declared that the aid granted by France was compatible aid in accordance with the conditions laid out by the Commission:

  • The adoption of the Law by France created a selective advantage for France Télécom that distorted or threatened to distort competition in the newly opened up telecoms market
  • There was nothing to stop the Commission from drawing the conclusion that the system – in excluding non-common risks – did not result in a competitively fair rate, and from asking for the new rate‘to ensure that France Télécom bears the same level of costs for social security charges as its competitors, including the charges which are not part of its budget due to its special status’
  • The Commission correctly assessed the effects of the €5.7 billion flat rate contribution as neutralising the aid for approximately 15 years. However, according to the GC, it cannot be ‘automatically inferred’ that the contributions during this time necessarily ensured fair competition.

Got something to say? Why not write a post for the Hub! email us at Stateaidhub[at]lexxion.de

 

 Links

Tags

About

Lexxion Publisher

Established in 2002, Lexxion offers professional journals, books, and events closely related to legal practice. Lexxion’s products cover topics such as Competition law, State aid law, Public Procurement, Public-Private Partnerships, EU Funds, Food Law, Chemical law and Climate Law at the European level. In 2013 we have launched the State Aid Uncovered blog as a Lexxion imprint, in 2018 the CoRe Blog followed.

Related Posts

16. Mar 2015
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides

Relief from Pension Contributions and Reduction of Taxes

Compensation for structural disadvantages encumbering undertakings is still State aid. Compensation for structural disadvantages encumbering SGEI providers is not State aid only if it satisfies the Altmark criteria. Reductions of excise duties approved by the Council may still be subject to scrutiny by the Commission under State aid rules. Exception of fossil fuel from energy taxes when it is not […]
16. Jan 2015
Guest State Aid Blog by Emma Linklater
Lady Justice

In Brief: Case C-518/13 Eventech and Case T-1/12 France v Commission

A quick look at the two new rulings this week. This post gives a preliminary overview of the two new judgments this week (more in depth posts with analysis will be online soon!): On Wednesday 14th January the CJEU passed its ruling in the hotly awaited Eventech case (Case C-518/13), while a day later the General Court gave its word on […]
22. Apr 2014
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
gavel

Two Judgments: a) Unlimited State Guarantees and b) The Discretion of the Commission in Restructuring Measures

Unlimited state guarantees are never compatible with the internal market. The existence of an unlimited guarantee and its benefits can be inferred from the relevant legal context in which the state assumes certain obligations towards creditors. The Commission may impose both structural and behavioural remedies on recipients of restructuring aid These remedies may cover sectors other than the main sector in which […]
29. Nov 2013
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
ship in the shipyard

The Private Investor Principle Applied to Loans [Commission Decision 2013/528]

Introduction The State aid issue in this case is relatively straightforward. Nauta, a Polish shipyard, received a two-year loan from IDA, the state-owned Polish Investment Agency. Because Nauta ran into some financial trouble, the loan was extended for another two years. In Decision 2013/528, the Commission had to examine two questions: First, did the initial loan market conform? Second, if […]
25. Mar 2013
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
100 euro detail

Where is the Money? The Link between Advantage and Transfer of State Resources

On 19 March 2013, the Court of Justice delivered an important judgment in case C-399/10 P, Bouygues v European Commission concerning aid that was granted by France to France Telecom. The case was an appeal to an earlier ruling of the General Court in case T 425/04 France and Others v Commission which annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621 […]