Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:283
Date: 2022-04-07
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: Spain;United Kingdom

Appeal brought on 23 July 2020 by easyJet Airline Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-8/18, easyJet Airline v Commission (Case C-343/20 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, avocat, A. Manzaneque Valverde, abogada) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside the judgment under appeal and/or annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/18611 of 29 July 2016 on State Aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) – Italy – Compensation to Sardinian airports from public service obligations (SGEI), to the extent that it concerns the appellant; in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in first instance. Pleas in law and main arguments The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following four grounds: First, the judgment under appeal erred in law by mixing the assessment of two conditions for the existence of State aid (state resources and advantage). Second, the judgment under appeal erred in law by considering that the MEO test could not be applied in the present case. The General Court erred in concluding that the airport operators did not contribute significant amounts of their own funds and did not act as private market economy operators. Furthermore, the reasoning in the judgment under appeal as to the non-application of the MEO test, infringed Article 345 TFUE, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as well as easyJet's rights of defence. Third, the judgment under appeal erred in law by concluding that the airport operators acted as mere intermediaries of the Region of Sardinia. Fourth, the judgment under appeal erred in law regarding the identification of: (i) the final beneficiaries of the regional scheme; (ii) the indirect advantage; and (iii) the secondary effects of the scheme. ____________ 1 OJ 2017, L 268, p. 1.