Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2014 in Case E-18/14 — Wow air ehf. v The Icelandic Competition Authority (Samkeppniseftirlitið), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf. (Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of time slots at EEA airports — Intervention by competition authorities — Accelerated procedure)
Date: 2014-12-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: administrative powers, air traffic, air traffic control, airport, restriction on competition, transport planning








C_2015183EN.01000901.xml










4.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/9





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 10 December 2014
in Case E-18/14
Wow air ehf. v The Icelandic Competition Authority (Samkeppniseftirlitið), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf.
(Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of time slots at EEA airports — Intervention by competition authorities — Accelerated procedure)
(2015/C 183/10)
In Case E-18/14, Wow air ehf. v The Icelandic Competition Authority (Samkeppniseftirlitið), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf. – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 requires an EEA State to appoint a qualified natural or legal person as airport coordinator after having consulted the parties indicated therein. Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 requires the coordinator to be independent, both legally and factually, from all interested parties from which he must also be functionally separated. As long as these conditions are fulfilled, EEA States have discretion in determining the status of the coordinator. On the basis of those findings, it is for the national court to draw the necessary conclusions in order to ensure the effectiveness of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93.










2.


The complaint procedure laid down in Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 is not mandatory. Therefore, this procedure does not preclude the possibility that complaints based on competition law considerations may be submitted directly to national competition authorities.










3.


Pursuant to Article 8b of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, public authorities' instructions on time slot allocation to encourage competition may be addressed to air carriers, but may not be directed to a coordinator. Moreover, it would serve no purpose to issue instructions to the airport managing body. Unlike the primary allocation of time slots, which is the sole responsibility of the coordinator, Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 does not prohibit the transfer of time slots after the time slot allocation, if required under competition law. Consequently, the competition authorities of an EEA State may instruct the undertakings concerned if such a remedy is found to be necessary under applicable national or EEA competition law.