# C_2017046EN.01002602.xml

| 13.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/26 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-894/16)

(2017/C 046/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: R. Sermier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1698 of 20 February 2014 concerning measures SA.22932 (11/C) (ex NN 37/07) implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport (notified under document C(2014) 870); |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |

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 flaws in the contested decision as regards the aid from the département of Bouches-du-Rhône to the ‘Marseille-Provence 2’ (MP 2) terminal. In particular,
—
the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards:
—
the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; —
the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; —
the aid is unnecessary. | — | the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards:
—
the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; —
the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; | — | the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; | — | the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; | — | the aid is unnecessary. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------- |
| — | the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards:
—
the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; —
the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; | — | the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; | — | the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; | | | | |
| — | the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; | | | | | | | | |
| — | the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; | | | | | | | | |
| — | the aid is unnecessary. | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the agreement to purchase advertising space with the company Airport Marketing Services. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the passenger charges for the terminal MP2. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

---