# C_2015065EN.01004201.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/42

---

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — BSCA v Commission

(Case T-818/14)

(2015/C 065/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 3 of the contested decision in that the Commission decided that the measures unlawfully implemented by Belgium, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of BSCA under the sub-concession agreement of 15 April 2002 between SOWAER and BSCA, under addendum No 3 of 29 March 2002 to the agreement between the Region of Wallonia and BSCA and under the investment decision of the Region of Wallonia of 3 April 2003, constitute, since 4 April 2014, State aid incompatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(1) of that treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 3 of the contested decision in that the Commission decided that the measures unlawfully implemented by Belgium, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of BSCA under the sub-concession agreement of 15 April 2002 between SOWAER and BSCA, under addendum No 3 of 29 March 2002 to the agreement between the Region of Wallonia and BSCA and under the investment decision of the Region of Wallonia of 3 April 2003, constitute, since 4 April 2014, State aid incompatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(1) of that treaty;

| — | consequently, annul Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 on measures unlawfully implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) and Ryanair (State aid SA.14093 (C76/2002)) in which the Commission found that the measures implemented under (i) the sub-concession agreement of 15 April 2002 concluded by the Société wallonne des aéroports (‘SOWAER’) and BSCA, (ii) addendum No 3 of 29 March 2002 to the agreement between the Region of Wallonia and BSCA and (iii) the investment decision of the Region of Wallonia of 3 April 2003 constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market. Consequently, the Commission demanded their recovery.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment by the Commission in setting the date of the decision for the Region of Wallonia to provide BSCA with funding. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment by the Commission in setting the date of the decision for the Region of Wallonia to provide BSCA with funding.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s action was time-barred in that the procedure for the investigation of the measures at issue was opened more than 10 years after the decisions to grant those measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s action was time-barred in that the procedure for the investigation of the measures at issue was opened more than 10 years after the decisions to grant those measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission classified the investments and major repairs to the ILS (Instrument Landing System) and to the runway lighting as economic. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission classified the investments and major repairs to the ILS (Instrument Landing System) and to the runway lighting as economic.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission found that the non-economic percentage of the cost of the investments made for the new terminal building was only 7 %. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission found that the non-economic percentage of the cost of the investments made for the new terminal building was only 7 %.

| 5. | Fifth and sixth plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment by the Commission in determining the net present values of the measures at issue. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth and sixth plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment by the Commission in determining the net present values of the measures at issue.

| 6. | Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and an error of law by the Commission in determining the additional fee to be paid from 1 January 2016 which has the effect of rendering any calculation of the amount of that fee impossible. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and an error of law by the Commission in determining the additional fee to be paid from 1 January 2016 which has the effect of rendering any calculation of the amount of that fee impossible.

| 7. | Eighth plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons by the Commission in its analysis of the market at issue and of the alleged distortions of competition between Charleroi airport and Brussels National airport. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Eighth plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons by the Commission in its analysis of the market at issue and of the alleged distortions of competition between Charleroi airport and Brussels National airport.

| 8. | Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

---