Brussels, 16/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - The General Court of the EU has confirmed the Commission's decision approving €59 million in public funding to Sequalum SAS for the high-speed broadband network in the Hauts- de-Seine department (fibre-optic), known as “the THD 92 project”. The initial decision by the French state was made after a call for tender. In so doing, the General Court rejects (rulings T-79/10, T 258/10 and T-325/10) the appeals by the different telecommunications operators (Colt Télécommunications France, Orange, Iliad, Free Infrastructure and Free), which opposed this authorisation and confirms that the project in question complies with the case law of the so-called “Altmark” case law (see other article on this page).
In particular, the General Court: - rejects the companies' argument alleging infringement of the applicants' procedural rights by the Commission because the formal investigation procedure laid down in the Treaties was not initiated (the Commission adopted the contested decision at the end of a formal preliminary investigation lasting 15 months which, in the companies' view, indicated the existence of “serious difficulties” in seeking to establish whether the measure constituted state aid and therefore required the opening of formal procedures). The General Court argues that the Commission did, indeed, reach a decision in the two-month deadline established by regulation, after having received all the necessary information regarding the project (the two-month deadline begins once complete notification by the member state in question has been received). It also rejects the alleged violation of the criteria in the Altmark case. The Court argues that in this connection: a) the THD 92 project could be classified as a service of general economic interest (SGEI) in the sense of the ruling, due to market failure; b) France demonstrated that the THD 92 project did indeed meet universal criteria and obligations and specificities of the SGEI by providing the public services and the people of this area with access to very high speed services; c) given the absence of commercial operators being able to provide these services to the Hauts-de-Seine department, the Commission had not erred in law in finding that there was a market failure, which is a prerequisite for classifying an activity as an SGEI, and therefore in finding that there was no state aid; d) the Commission also correctly verifies the absence of over-compensation for the charges linked to public service obligations paid to Sequalum SAS. (FG/trans.fl)