# C_2013171EN.01000903.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

(Case C-27/13)

2013/C 171/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and Respondent in the Appeal: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

Applicant and Respondent in the Appeal:

Defendant and Appellant in the Appeal: Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

Defendant and Appellant in the Appeal:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must a national court, asked to adjudicate a claim for recovery of benefits and for discontinuation of future benefits, regard these benefits as measures which under the third sentence of Art. 108(3) TFEU may not be implemented before a final decision by the European Commission (‘the Commission’), if the Commission has decided, unchallenged, to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure under Art. 108(2) TFEU in relation to these benefits, and has stated in the grounds of this decision, in essence, inter alia that these benefits probably constitute State aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must a national court, asked to adjudicate a claim for recovery of benefits and for discontinuation of future benefits, regard these benefits as measures which under the third sentence of Art. 108(3) TFEU may not be implemented before a final decision by the European Commission (‘the Commission’), if the Commission has decided, unchallenged, to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure under Art. 108(2) TFEU in relation to these benefits, and has stated in the grounds of this decision, in essence, inter alia that these benefits probably constitute State aid?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is yes:
  Does the same apply if the Commission has moreover stated in the grounds of its decision, in essence, that it is not in a position to determine whether the provider of the benefits was acting as a normal private investor in a market economy [Or. 2] when it undertook to make the benefits available? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is yes:

Does the same apply if the Commission has moreover stated in the grounds of its decision, in essence, that it is not in a position to determine whether the provider of the benefits was acting as a normal private investor in a market economy [Or. 2] when it undertook to make the benefits available?

| 3. | If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is no:
  May the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is no:

May the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure?

| 4. | If the answer to question 3 is yes:
  Must the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to question 3 is yes:

Must the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure?

---