# C_2018063EN.01002102.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

---

Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-833/17)

(2018/C 063/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1(2)-(4), 2, 3, and 4 of Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) insofar as they concern the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1(2)-(4), 2, 3, and 4 of Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) insofar as they concern the applicants;

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the applicants’ rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the applicants’ rights of defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons because it failed to apply the market economy operator (MEO) test and instead applied the Altmark test to the commercial relationship between Cagliari airport and the applicants, including the alleged aid payments, even though these were made on the basis of contracts concluded prior to the adoption of Law 10/2010. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons because it failed to apply the market economy operator (MEO) test and instead applied the Altmark test to the commercial relationship between Cagliari airport and the applicants, including the alleged aid payments, even though these were made on the basis of contracts concluded prior to the adoption of Law 10/2010.

Altmark

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination by not applying the MEO test to the agreements between Cagliari airport and the applicants, on the ground that the Sardinian Region was only a minority shareholder of Cagliari airport. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination by not applying the MEO test to the agreements between Cagliari airport and the applicants, on the ground that the Sardinian Region was only a minority shareholder of Cagliari airport.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Cagliari airport as a beneficiary of aid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Cagliari airport as a beneficiary of aid.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is assumed that Cagliari airport was not a beneficiary of Law 10/2010, the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it should have applied the MEO test to the Sardinian Region’s conduct, even under its own assumption that Cagliari airport was a passive ‘vehicle’ for the Region’s funds. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is assumed that Cagliari airport was not a beneficiary of Law 10/2010, the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it should have applied the MEO test to the Sardinian Region’s conduct, even under its own assumption that Cagliari airport was a passive ‘vehicle’ for the Region’s funds.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is further assumed that Law 10/2010 concerns Services of General Economic Interest and the MEO test is inapplicable, the contested decision would nevertheless violate Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously considered payments for marketing services as a hidden subsidy for the operation of aeronautical routes. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is further assumed that Law 10/2010 concerns Services of General Economic Interest and the MEO test is inapplicable, the contested decision would nevertheless violate Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously considered payments for marketing services as a hidden subsidy for the operation of aeronautical routes.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that, even if the Court were to find that aid existed, the Commission infringed Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU by committing a manifest error in its instructions to the Member State regarding the determination of the quantum of recoverable aid. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that, even if the Court were to find that aid existed, the Commission infringed Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU by committing a manifest error in its instructions to the Member State regarding the determination of the quantum of recoverable aid.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).

1

---