# C_2015155EN.01001101.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/11 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Case C-61/15 P)

(2015/C 155/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Form of order sought

| 1. | The appellant claims that the Court should:
—
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and annul the respondent’s decision of 13 January 2012 notified to the appellant rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034); —
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and order the respondent to pay the appellant damages for the loss suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent’s decision to reject the appellant’s application. | — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and annul the respondent’s decision of 13 January 2012 notified to the appellant rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034); | — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and order the respondent to pay the appellant damages for the loss suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent’s decision to reject the appellant’s application. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and annul the respondent’s decision of 13 January 2012 notified to the appellant rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034); | | | | |
| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and order the respondent to pay the appellant damages for the loss suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent’s decision to reject the appellant’s application. | | | | |

| 2. | In the alternative,
—
set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision in so far as the decision of the respondent was upheld; —
set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court in so far as it upheld the Board of Appeal of the EASA’s decision of 17 December 2012 in Case AP/01/2012, which was notified to the appellant on 27 December 2012; —
set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision of the Board of Appeal of the respondent in so far as:
—
the latter was upheld, —
the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, and grant the applications of the applicant and appellant introduced at first instance. | — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision in so far as the decision of the respondent was upheld; | — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court in so far as it upheld the Board of Appeal of the EASA’s decision of 17 December 2012 in Case AP/01/2012, which was notified to the appellant on 27 December 2012; | — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision of the Board of Appeal of the respondent in so far as:
—
the latter was upheld, —
the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, and grant the applications of the applicant and appellant introduced at first instance. | — | the latter was upheld, | — | the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision in so far as the decision of the respondent was upheld; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court in so far as it upheld the Board of Appeal of the EASA’s decision of 17 December 2012 in Case AP/01/2012, which was notified to the appellant on 27 December 2012; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision of the Board of Appeal of the respondent in so far as:
—
the latter was upheld, —
the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, and grant the applications of the applicant and appellant introduced at first instance. | — | the latter was upheld, | — | the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, | | | | | | |
| — | the latter was upheld, | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, | | | | | | | | | | |

| 3. | In the further alternative, set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 4. | Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in re-interpreting the applicant’s action for annulment to the extent that it considered it as solely directed against the Board of Appeal’s decision and thereby infringed Article 50 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008.

To the extent that in explaining the facts of the case it merely relied upon the submissions of the parties, it is further alleged that the General Court infringed the principle that it is to examine the facts of its own motion. In particular, the General Court did not address the issue of whether the Robinson R66 helicopter could, or could not, be flown without danger.

The judgment of the General Court should also be set aside because it infringed substantive EU law by mistakenly applying by analogy the principle on which it assesses ‘complex economic appraisals’ to the present area of law in the present case. The General Court’s case-law (inter alia, judgment of 17 September 2007, Case T-201/04( 2 ), in Microsoft v Commission, paragraph 87 et seq.) concerning those rules cannot be applied by analogy to the present area of law. The present case concerns neither rules of competition law, nor decisions of the Commission. Nor did the present case involve a ‘complex technical issue’, since neither the defendant nor the Board of Appeal addressed such issues.

Finally, the General Court took the view that there could be no liability to pay compensation unless all of the conditions of the duty to make good damage caused set out in Article 340 TFEU were fulfilled. Having erred in law with regard to the action for annulment, the General Court further erred in dismissing the action for damages. Since the General Court should have allowed in both the annulment of the original decision as well as that of the Board of Appeal, the action for damages should also have been allowed.

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ 2008 L 79, p. 1).

( 2 )  ECLI:EU:T:2007:289.

---