# C_2021368EN.01001401.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/14

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2021 by Land Rheinland-Pfalz against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-218/18, Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission

(Case C-466/21 P)

(2021/C 368/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: R. van der Hout, advocaat, C. Wagner, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Deutsche Lufthansa AG, European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 May 2021 in Case T-218/18, Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission, and definitively dismiss the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 May 2021 in Case T-218/18, Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission, and definitively dismiss the action;

| — | order Deutsche Lufthansa AG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Deutsche Lufthansa AG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based on five grounds:

| — | First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by considering that Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘DLH’) had standing under Article 263(4) TFEU. It incorrectly assumed that DLH was an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) and Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) and that its action alleged an infringement of its procedural rights. Furthermore, the General Court did not sufficiently explain the relevant aspects it took into account for its decision on standing. |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by considering that Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘DLH’) had standing under Article 263(4) TFEU. It incorrectly assumed that DLH was an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) and Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) and that its action alleged an infringement of its procedural rights. Furthermore, the General Court did not sufficiently explain the relevant aspects it took into account for its decision on standing.

| — | Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by basing its decision as to the catchment area solely on the text of the contested decision, without consulting the relevant context and documents from the administrative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by basing its decision as to the catchment area solely on the text of the contested decision, without consulting the relevant context and documents from the administrative procedure.

| — | Third ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by basing the judgment on the fact that the Commission did not take into account destination airports and other specific features when determining the catchment area. Since DLH did not challenge this in its application, the General Court should not have upheld the application on this ground. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by basing the judgment on the fact that the Commission did not take into account destination airports and other specific features when determining the catchment area. Since DLH did not challenge this in its application, the General Court should not have upheld the application on this ground.

| — | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by considering that the Commission did not address all concerns as to the compatibility of the catchment area with the internal market. In so doing, the General Court failed to appreciate that, when taking a decision to close the preliminary investigation procedure, the Commission must decide on the basis of the information available to it at that time, and that the Commission had no reason to raise concerns when examining the compatibility of the catchment area with the criteria of the Guidelines on aid in the aviation sector. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by considering that the Commission did not address all concerns as to the compatibility of the catchment area with the internal market. In so doing, the General Court failed to appreciate that, when taking a decision to close the preliminary investigation procedure, the Commission must decide on the basis of the information available to it at that time, and that the Commission had no reason to raise concerns when examining the compatibility of the catchment area with the criteria of the Guidelines on aid in the aviation sector.

| — | Fifth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 264(2) TFEU by annulling the contested decision without specifying which effects should continue to apply. In addition, it breached its duty to state reasons, since it did not justify the decision with regard to its temporal effect. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 264(2) TFEU by annulling the contested decision without specifying which effects should continue to apply. In addition, it breached its duty to state reasons, since it did not justify the decision with regard to its temporal effect.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---