# C_2015398EN.01007401.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/74

---

Action brought on 13 October 2015 — Transavia Airlines v Commission

(Case T-591/15)

(2015/C 398/87)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Transavia Airlines (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Elkerbout and M. R. Baneke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1(3) and (in so far as they concern Article 1(3)) Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(3) and (in so far as they concern Article 1(3)) Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission; and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (notified under document C(2014) 5085) (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the rights of the defence.






  — | The applicant was not, before the contested decision was adopted, given the opportunity to put forward its views. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the rights of the defence.

—

The applicant was not, before the contested decision was adopted, given the opportunity to put forward its views.

| — | The Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant’s request of 25 August 2015 for access to certain documents on the file. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant’s request of 25 August 2015 for access to certain documents on the file.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the alleged aid measures were wrongly attributed to the French State.






  — | The Commission erred in classifying the ‘chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Pau-Béarn’ as a State body. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the alleged aid measures were wrongly attributed to the French State.

—

The Commission erred in classifying the ‘chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Pau-Béarn’ as a State body.

| — | The Commission contradicts itself in its assessment of the character of the ‘chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Pau-Béarn’. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission contradicts itself in its assessment of the character of the ‘chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Pau-Béarn’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the test of the operator in a market economy was applied incorrectly.






  — | The Commission provided insufficient reasons as to why it applied the profitability test rather than making a comparison with the market price. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the test of the operator in a market economy was applied incorrectly.

—

The Commission provided insufficient reasons as to why it applied the profitability test rather than making a comparison with the market price.

| — | The Commission applied the profitability test incorrectly in disregarding the rationale of Pau Airport in accepting the agreement with the applicant, in adopting too short a time-frame and in not making it clear what revenue and benefits for Pau Airport it was taking into account. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission applied the profitability test incorrectly in disregarding the rationale of Pau Airport in accepting the agreement with the applicant, in adopting too short a time-frame and in not making it clear what revenue and benefits for Pau Airport it was taking into account.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission unduly found that the alleged economic advantage was selective. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission unduly found that the alleged economic advantage was selective.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission failed to assess whether the alleged economic advantages also had actual adverse effects on competition. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission failed to assess whether the alleged economic advantages also had actual adverse effects on competition.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU and of Article 108(2) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission made an error of assessment and misinterpreted the law in determining that the aid provided to the applicant was equivalent to the cumulative losses for Pau Airport over the period from 2006 to 2009, whereas it ought to have examined what advantage the applicant actually enjoyed in practice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU and of Article 108(2) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission made an error of assessment and misinterpreted the law in determining that the aid provided to the applicant was equivalent to the cumulative losses for Pau Airport over the period from 2006 to 2009, whereas it ought to have examined what advantage the applicant actually enjoyed in practice.

---