# C_2020378EN.01003701.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/37

---

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Carpatair v Commission

(Case T-522/20)

(2020/C 378/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carpatair SA (Timiş, Romania) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and A. Manzaneque Valverde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision on State aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) — Implemented by Romania for Timisoara International Airport — Wizz Air; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision on State aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) — Implemented by Romania for Timisoara International Airport — Wizz Air;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law in the contested decision as regards the selective nature of the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).






  — | As recognised by Romanian courts, the discounts included in the 2010 AIP granted State aid to Wizz Air at the Timisoara Airport. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law in the contested decision as regards the selective nature of the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

—

As recognised by Romanian courts, the discounts included in the 2010 AIP granted State aid to Wizz Air at the Timisoara Airport.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of facts and an error of law as regards the conclusion that the arrangements between the airport manager and Wizz Air did not confer an undue advantage to the latter.






  — | First, the airport manager-s behaviour was not comparable to that of a private operator in a market economy. Second, the Commission wrongly assessed the arrangements as isolated facts and disregarded elements of critical relevance for the Market Economy Operator test (MEO test). Foreseeable developments at the time of the conclusion of the arrangements produced the result that they were not profitable to the airport manager in the medium-long term. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of facts and an error of law as regards the conclusion that the arrangements between the airport manager and Wizz Air did not confer an undue advantage to the latter.

—

First, the airport manager-s behaviour was not comparable to that of a private operator in a market economy. Second, the Commission wrongly assessed the arrangements as isolated facts and disregarded elements of critical relevance for the Market Economy Operator test (MEO test). Foreseeable developments at the time of the conclusion of the arrangements produced the result that they were not profitable to the airport manager in the medium-long term.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Commission’s violation of its duty of care regarding the applicant’s allegation of price discrimination at the Timisoara Airport. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Commission’s violation of its duty of care regarding the applicant’s allegation of price discrimination at the Timisoara Airport.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law by disregarding the State aid granted to Wizz Air through a discounted security charge. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law by disregarding the State aid granted to Wizz Air through a discounted security charge.

---