# C_2015254EN.01001602.xml

| 3.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/16 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T-263/15)

(2015/C 254/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Gdynia, Poland) and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. z o. o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: T. Koncewicz, K. Gruszecka-Spychała and M. Le Berre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul and set aside in its entirety the decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N), Poland, ‘Setting up of Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport’; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies inter alia on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law:
—
Arbitrariness and manifest error in determining the facts taken as the basis for making the contested decision, and consequently exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion and committing manifest errors in the assessment of the evidence. | — | Arbitrariness and manifest error in determining the facts taken as the basis for making the contested decision, and consequently exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion and committing manifest errors in the assessment of the evidence. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Arbitrariness and manifest error in determining the facts taken as the basis for making the contested decision, and consequently exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion and committing manifest errors in the assessment of the evidence. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law:
—
Failure of the Commission to consider the relevant factors and circumstances for the legal assessment of the investments in Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo. | — | Failure of the Commission to consider the relevant factors and circumstances for the legal assessment of the investments in Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Failure of the Commission to consider the relevant factors and circumstances for the legal assessment of the investments in Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law:
—
Exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion within the meaning of the case-law emphasising the obligations of the institution exercising discretion to explain both why certain items of evidence and facts are taken into consideration and why others are rejected. | — | Exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion within the meaning of the case-law emphasising the obligations of the institution exercising discretion to explain both why certain items of evidence and facts are taken into consideration and why others are rejected. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion within the meaning of the case-law emphasising the obligations of the institution exercising discretion to explain both why certain items of evidence and facts are taken into consideration and why others are rejected. | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law:
—
Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with a general principle of European law — the principle of legal certainty and good faith of the institution towards subjects of law, by its erroneous application and interpretation. | — | Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with a general principle of European law — the principle of legal certainty and good faith of the institution towards subjects of law, by its erroneous application and interpretation. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with a general principle of European law — the principle of legal certainty and good faith of the institution towards subjects of law, by its erroneous application and interpretation. | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law:
—
Infringement in the erroneous legal categorisation of facts and evidence, resulting in a breach by the contested decision of Article 107(1) TFEU, in finding that the conditions were not fulfilled in this case for regarding the operations at issue as satisfying the private investor test and that it had not been shown that the investment project would be carried out by a private investor, and consequently finding that the Gdynia Kosakowo investment was unauthorised public aid. | — | Infringement in the erroneous legal categorisation of facts and evidence, resulting in a breach by the contested decision of Article 107(1) TFEU, in finding that the conditions were not fulfilled in this case for regarding the operations at issue as satisfying the private investor test and that it had not been shown that the investment project would be carried out by a private investor, and consequently finding that the Gdynia Kosakowo investment was unauthorised public aid. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Infringement in the erroneous legal categorisation of facts and evidence, resulting in a breach by the contested decision of Article 107(1) TFEU, in finding that the conditions were not fulfilled in this case for regarding the operations at issue as satisfying the private investor test and that it had not been shown that the investment project would be carried out by a private investor, and consequently finding that the Gdynia Kosakowo investment was unauthorised public aid. | | |

---