# C_2013123EN.01001802.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/18

---

Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Heli-Flight v EASA

(Case T-102/13)

2013/C 123/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (Reichelsheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 13 January 2012 rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 13 January 2012 rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034);

| — | declare that the defendant failed, without justification, to act in respect of the applicant’s applications for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034) of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant failed, without justification, to act in respect of the applicant’s applications for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034) of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012;

| — | declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicant for all loss incurred as a result of the fact that it rejected the applicant’s applications for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034) of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012 and/or failed, without justification, to act as regards the decisions on the approval of flight conditions for that helicopter; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicant for all loss incurred as a result of the fact that it rejected the applicant’s applications for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034) of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012 and/or failed, without justification, to act as regards the decisions on the approval of flight conditions for that helicopter;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the first head of claim, the applicant essentially submits the following:

| 1. | In the applicant’s view, the decision on the approval of flight conditions is not a discretionary decision. It is submitted in that regard, inter alia, that the burden of proof as to the fact that the aircraft in question can fly safely under specified conditions is on the defendant, not the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the applicant’s view, the decision on the approval of flight conditions is not a discretionary decision. It is submitted in that regard, inter alia, that the burden of proof as to the fact that the aircraft in question can fly safely under specified conditions is on the defendant, not the applicant.

| 2. | Further, the applicant submits that, in the event that the defendant’s decision on the approval of flight conditions is a discretionary decision, the defendant failed to exercise its discretion, or in any event exercised it erroneously. In the applicant’s view, the defendant exercises its discretion erroneously when it relies on safety information obtained during the type-certification process, to which the applicant was not a party. In addition, the applicant complains that the defendant has failed sufficiently to particularise the alleged safety concerns in the present proceedings. In that context, the applicant submits that it was given no opportunity to comment on specific alleged sources of risk. The applicant also claims that the defendant’s reasoning is manifestly contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Further, the applicant submits that, in the event that the defendant’s decision on the approval of flight conditions is a discretionary decision, the defendant failed to exercise its discretion, or in any event exercised it erroneously. In the applicant’s view, the defendant exercises its discretion erroneously when it relies on safety information obtained during the type-certification process, to which the applicant was not a party. In addition, the applicant complains that the defendant has failed sufficiently to particularise the alleged safety concerns in the present proceedings. In that context, the applicant submits that it was given no opportunity to comment on specific alleged sources of risk. The applicant also claims that the defendant’s reasoning is manifestly contradictory.

| 3. | In the alternative, the applicant submits that it has produced proof that the aircraft in question can be flown safely under specified conditions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that it has produced proof that the aircraft in question can be flown safely under specified conditions.

| 4. | Finally, in relation to its application for annulment the applicant pleads breaches of the duty of good administration on the part of the defendant. According to the applicant, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to investigate, wrongly relied on confidentiality in connection with the type-certification process, infringed the applicant’s right to be heard and infringed the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Finally, in relation to its application for annulment the applicant pleads breaches of the duty of good administration on the part of the defendant. According to the applicant, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to investigate, wrongly relied on confidentiality in connection with the type-certification process, infringed the applicant’s right to be heard and infringed the obligation to state reasons.

---