# C_2021289EN.01004101.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/41

---

Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-291/21)

(2021/C 289/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: M. Rees and E. Estellon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union (represented by the European Commission) to pay:






  — | Financial compensation corresponding to the default interest on the sum of EUR 57 120 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (i.e. 1,0 percentage point), increased by 3,5 percentage points, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 4 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 14 211 026,51or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union (represented by the European Commission) to pay:

—

Financial compensation corresponding to the default interest on the sum of EUR 57 120 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (i.e. 1,0 percentage point), increased by 3,5 percentage points, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 4 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 14 211 026,51or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and

| — | Compound interest on the amount of default interest for the period between 5 February 2016 (or, failing that, from the date the Court will consider appropriate) and the date of actual payment by the European Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Compound interest on the amount of default interest for the period between 5 February 2016 (or, failing that, from the date the Court will consider appropriate) and the date of actual payment by the European Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate;

| — | Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the contested decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the Applicant’s costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the Applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicant relies on a single plea in law. The applicant alleges that the European Union is liable pursuant to Articles 266, 268 and 340 TFEU to pay non-contractual damages to the applicant amounting to default interest for the reference period.

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on four pleas in law

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision as its basis for rejecting the application as time-barred constitutes an error in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision as its basis for rejecting the application as time-barred constitutes an error in law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision (3) because it is insufficiently motivated. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision (3) because it is insufficiently motivated.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

(3)  No Ares(2021)2113498 of 25 March 2021.

---