CELEX: 62016TN0894
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-894/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Air France v Commission

13.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 46/26
            
         Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Air France v Commission
   (Case T-894/16)
   (2017/C 046/30)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Société Air France (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: R. Sermier, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1698 of 20 February 2014 concerning measures SA.22932 (11/C) (ex NN 37/07) implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport (notified under document C(2014) 870);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the aid from the département of Bouches-du-Rhône to the ‘Marseille-Provence 2’ (MP 2) terminal. In particular,
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards:
                           
                                       —
                                    
                                    
                                       the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic;
                                    
                                 
                                       —
                                    
                                    
                                       the objective of boosting the region’s economic development;
                                    
                                 
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the aid is unnecessary.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the agreement to purchase advertising space with the company Airport Marketing Services.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the passenger charges for the terminal MP2.