# C_2022359EN.01009602.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/96

---

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Cathay Pacific Airways/Commission

(Case T-489/22)

(2022/C 359/118)

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 applicant claims 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 10 080 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 March 2017 (i.e. 0,0 percentage point), increased by a rate at 3,5 percentage points per annum, for the period between 21 June 2017 and 14 July 2022 which results in an amount of EUR 1 758 488,24 or, failing that, at the interest rate or the amount that 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 10 080 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 March 2017 (i.e. 0,0 percentage point), increased by a rate at 3,5 percentage points per annum, for the period between 21 June 2017 and 14 July 2022 which results in an amount of EUR 1 758 488,24 or, failing that, at the interest rate or the amount that the Court considers appropriate; and

| — | compound interest on the amount of default interest under the preceding subparagraph for the period between 15 July 2022 (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 an interest rate at 3,5 percentage points per annum or, failing that, at the interest rate or the amount the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

compound interest on the amount of default interest under the preceding subparagraph for the period between 15 July 2022 (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 an interest rate at 3,5 percentage points per annum or, failing that, at the interest rate or the amount the Court considers appropriate;

| — | further or alternatively, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Commission’s decision Ares(2022)5454770 of 29 July 2022 and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraph above; |
| --- | --- |

—

further or alternatively, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Commission’s decision Ares(2022)5454770 of 29 July 2022 and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraph above;

| — | 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, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 266 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled because it is insufficiently motivated. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled because it is insufficiently motivated.

---

(1)  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).

---