Case T-209/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, airport, competition policy, equality before the law, principle of legal certainty, property leasing, regional development








C_2015205EN.01003701.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/37





Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
(Case T-209/15)
(2015/C 205/50)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Kosakowo, Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 2(1) and (2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N);










—


annul Article 3(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N);










—


annul Article 4(1) and (2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant for the purposes of its legal representation.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant sets out five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law:






—


erroneous determination of the facts taken as the basis for the contested decision.














2.


Second plea in law:






—


Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of the baseless assumption that Gmina Kosakowo (Municipality of Kosakowo), contrary to that provision, granted public aid, even though the receipt by that municipality of shares in the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. (Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport company with limited liability) represented the settlement of a transaction carried out in the context of a land-tenancy contract, by reason of the improper application by the European Commission of the private-investor test, and by reason of the baseless assumption that the granting of public aid to the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. distorted, or threatened to distort, competition and adversely affected trade between Member States.














3.


Third plea in law:






—


Breach of Article 107(3)(a) and (c) TFEU by reason of the assumption that the making of the investments was not justified in terms of regional development and was not in proportion to the disadvantages which it was intended to alleviate thereby, and also by reason of the assumption that the aid granted in favour of the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. was incompatible with the conditions governing the operation of the internal market.














4.


Fourth plea in law:






—


Breach of the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU on the ground that the European Commission misused the power granted to it by reason of the disregard for, and inappropriate classification of, the applicant’s activity, incorrect classification of the aid measure, failure to carry out the legally required analysis of the ‘private-investor test’ to appraise the project for the construction of the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport, and by reason of a defective and incomplete analysis of the market for local and regional airports in Poland.














5.


Fifth plea in law:






—


Breach of procedural provisions: breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1), by reason of the legally defective conduct of the private-investor test; breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision; infringement of the principle of sound administration; infringement of the principle of equality before the law; and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.