CELEX: 62018TN0619
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-619/18: Action brought on 15 October 2018 — TUIfly v Commission

3.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 436/63
            
         
      Action brought on 15 October 2018 — TUIfly v Commission
      (Case T-619/18)
      (2018/C 436/88)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: TUIfly GmbH (Langenhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Giesberts and M. Gayger, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the defendant’s Decision C(2018) 5432 final of 3 August 2018 on the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2018/2506 and order the defendant to grant the applicant access to the documents in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  join the present case to the applicant’s case pending before the General Court with case number T-447/18 against the defendant for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The claim is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the applicant’s rights of defence, as the Commission did not grant the applicant access to the investigation documents and failed to place it in a position in which it could properly defend itself.