Case T-522/25: Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Luxair v Commission
Date: 2025-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Lombardy, abuse of power, air transport, economic concentration, equal treatment, merger control, principle of legal certainty








C_202504905EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4905


15.9.2025






Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Luxair v Commission


(Case T-522/25)

(C/2025/4905)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA (Munsbach, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marchand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 29 November 2024 (decision on the implementation of the commitments – purchaser approval) based on paragraphs 35 and 37 of the commitments attached to the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2024 based on Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, (1) in Case M.11071 - DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA / MEF / ITA (the ‘contested decision’) (version published on the Commission website on 20 May 2025), in so far as it






—


approves EASYJET as suitable short-haul remedy taker and validates the consolidation of the Milan-Linate short-haul slot bundle (including residual Milan-Linate slots) in its favour; and










—


authorises or endorses the transfer of additional Milan-Linate slot pairs to the long-haul remedy takers, while concluding that the implementation of the remedy is consistent with the commitments annexed to the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2024 based on Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation, in Case M.11071 - DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA / MEF / ITA;














—


alternatively, should these parts be found indivisible from the remainder of the contested decision, annul the contested decision in its entirety; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error in its assessment under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation by misapplying the commitments’ purchaser-approval and suitability criteria in approving EASYJET as the single short-haul remedy taker at Milan-Linate.










2.


Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons measured against the commitments (Article 296 TFEU).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging excess of powers under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and misuse of the purchaser-approval procedure, as well as breach of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and good administration, and violation of Article 296 TFEU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision implements an unlawful Milan-Linate remedy architecture (derived illegality).






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4905/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)