# C_2014388EN.01002302.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/23 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 19 September 2014 — SEA v Commission

(Case T-674/14)

2014/C 388/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti, J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 whereby the European Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure concerning the setting up of Airport Handling (‘the contested decision’); |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: failure to state reasons in the contested decision.
—
The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, no account was taken of elements which had an essential part to play in the adoption of that decision and of which the Commission had been fully informed (for example, the fact that a Trust had been established in order to ensure a complete economic break between Airport Handling and SEA Handling, a company alleged to have received State aid SA.21420). | — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, no account was taken of elements which had an essential part to play in the adoption of that decision and of which the Commission had been fully informed (for example, the fact that a Trust had been established in order to ensure a complete economic break between Airport Handling and SEA Handling, a company alleged to have received State aid SA.21420). |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, no account was taken of elements which had an essential part to play in the adoption of that decision and of which the Commission had been fully informed (for example, the fact that a Trust had been established in order to ensure a complete economic break between Airport Handling and SEA Handling, a company alleged to have received State aid SA.21420). | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law: misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU as a result of an error in the assessment of important elements and objective information brought to the Commission’s attention by the applicant.
—
The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, the Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling could be regarded as SEA Handling’s economic successor and that the applicant’s financial contribution to Airport Handling constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. | — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, the Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling could be regarded as SEA Handling’s economic successor and that the applicant’s financial contribution to Airport Handling constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, the Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling could be regarded as SEA Handling’s economic successor and that the applicant’s financial contribution to Airport Handling constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law: breach of the fundamental principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, sound administration, proportionality and non-discrimination.
—
The applicant claims in that regard that both the conduct displayed by the departments of the Commission and the contested decision are patently contrary to those principles of EU law. In particular, with regard to the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the Commission should have allayed its own concerns by carrying out a thorough analysis of the information supplied by the applicant before the investigation, instead of adopting the — now contested — decision launching a formal investigation procedure. | — | The applicant claims in that regard that both the conduct displayed by the departments of the Commission and the contested decision are patently contrary to those principles of EU law. In particular, with regard to the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the Commission should have allayed its own concerns by carrying out a thorough analysis of the information supplied by the applicant before the investigation, instead of adopting the — now contested — decision launching a formal investigation procedure. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims in that regard that both the conduct displayed by the departments of the Commission and the contested decision are patently contrary to those principles of EU law. In particular, with regard to the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the Commission should have allayed its own concerns by carrying out a thorough analysis of the information supplied by the applicant before the investigation, instead of adopting the — now contested — decision launching a formal investigation procedure. | | |

---