Case C-482/24 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2024 by Global 8 Airlines against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2024 in Case T-277/23, Global 8 Airlines v Commission
Date: 2024-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, air traffic control, aircraft, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership








C_202405612EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5612


30.9.2024






Appeal brought on 9 July 2024 by Global 8 Airlines against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2024 in Case T-277/23, Global 8 Airlines v Commission


(Case C-482/24 P)

(C/2024/5612)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Global 8 Airlines (represented by: E. Novicāne and K. Novicāns, advokāti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Deem the Appeal against the General Court Order (First Chamber) of April 29, 2024 admissible and well founded










—


Annul the said General Court Decision in full and










—


order the European Commission to cover the Appellant’s costs in this appeal process in full.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Appellant relies on two pleas in law to refute the General Court’s assessment. The Appellant’s main argument is that, during the litigation phase, the DG MOVE changed its approach from a substantive basis (reason for inclusion of the Appellant’s jets into the flight ban list) into a procedural basis (there is no decision creating legal consequences to the Appellant at all). The General Court Decision supports the DG MOVE’s changed approach, and deems the situation as that of merely denying the flight plan (a matter of EUROCONTROL (air traffic services provision) acting on behalf of the Member States in accordance with the respective air traffic services provisions in EU law).
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court misconstrues the design of Regulation 833/2014 (1). The concept of ‘Russian owned or controlled aircraft’ – the reasoning behind the DG MOVE decision - is introduced in Article 3d(1) of Regulation 833/2014, while the EUROCONTROL’s (Network Manager’s) activities relating to air traffic services (including, approval or rejection of the flight plan) is regulated in a distinct Articles 3e, reflecting on the supportive role to be played by the Network Manager. As a corollary, the independent determination (assessment) capacity by either, conceptually, DG MOVE or Member States over the aircraft’s status is still preserved.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court has misconstrued the the EU law in action, as applied, in practice, by DG MOVE, Member States, and EUROCONTROL. Case file demonstrates a clear and comprehensively consistent practice by all involved entities – Member States, European Commission, and EUROCONOTROL – that is, it is only the DG MOVE – as a general rule - that makes the ultimate decision as to the exact aircraft status and all other entities merely implement that decision through their respective competences (including, EUROCONTROL in its capacity as the Network Manager on behalf of the Member States).


(1)  
            OJ 2014, L 229, p.1



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5612/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)