• Recently Written

  • Coming up: ECJ to give judgment in C-280/08 P Deutsche Telekom on 14 October
  • “This is a strange abuse”*: advocate general Mazák on margin squeeze, once again
  • “in regard of causes now in hand”*: a midsummer roundup of ECJ cases
  • “a joint burden laid upon us all”*: advocate general on universal service financing
  • “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!”* Advocate general reprimands Council and Commission

• Categories

  • communication technologies
  • competition/mergers/state aid
  • copyright
  • digital content
  • events / publications
  • fundamental rights
  • national regulatory authorities
  • public services
  • spectrum policy

• Archives

  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • July 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007

• Blogroll/Links

  • antitrustlawblog
  • antitrustprof
  • e-comm (in German)
  • Electronic Communications Regulation Update
  • Eoin O'Dell
  • informationoverlord
  • lexferenda
  • Media Law Prof Blog
  • MediaPal @ LSE
  • Net Neutrality in Europe
  • Online Journal on International Constitutional Law
  • professor geradin
  • telemedicus (in German)
  • Virtual Law @ LSE

• RSS-Feed

  

  • Admin

    • Login
    • Wordpress

“ever precise in promise-keeping”*?: open and vague ministerial promises do not constitute state aid

Posted on May 24, 2010 | Filed Under communication technologies 

The General Court delivered judgment on 21 May 2010 in the joined cases T-425/04 France v. Commission, T-444/04 France Télécom v. Commission, T-450/04 Bouygues v. Commission, T-456/04 AFORS Télécom v. Commission, annulling Commission Decision C(2004)3060.

The origins of the case go back to 2002,when France Télécom (FT) was in a rather difficult economic situation and French authorities - representing the majority stockholder - issued a series of public declarations. Most notably, the Minister of the Ecomony declared that “the shareholder State will act as a prudent investor and were FT to encounter difficulties, we would take the appropriate measures … I repeat that were FT to face funding problems, which is not the case today, the State would take the necessary decisions in order to overcome them”. The Commission had viewed these declarations, together with an offer by the French State of a shareholder loan for FT (a 9 billion Euro credit line), as state aid and incompatible with teh Treaty.

The General Court agreed that the statements of the French authorities did confer a financial advantage on FT, as they had had a decisive influence on the reaction of the ratings agencies. However, the Court came to the conclusion that there had not been a transfer of State resources. “On account of their open, imprecise and conditional nature, in particular as regards the nature, scope and conditions of possible State intervention in favour of FT, the statements made from July 2002 onwards cannot be construed as a State guarantee or be interpreted as containing an irrevocable commitment to provide specific financial assistance to FT.” (quote taken from the press release; the judgment is available only in French; the relevant paragraphs are 268 to 289).

*) Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act I, Scene 2

Comments