CELEX: 62015TN0165
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-165/15: Action brought on 7 April 2015 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services/Commission

13.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 228/18
            
         Action brought on 7 April 2015 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services/Commission
   (Case T-165/15)
   (2015/C 228/22)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland); and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, and G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Articles 1(1), 1(2), and (insofar as these concern Articles 1(1) and 1(2)) Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the European Commission decision of 23 July 2014 in State aid case SA.22614 finding that Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services had received unlawful State aid from the Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Pau-Béarn, incompatible with the internal Market; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants access to the file of the investigation and put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission wrongly imputed the measures at issue to the State.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, failed to assess the marketing agreements from the separate market economy operator viewpoints of the owner and the operator of the airport, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, wrongly based its assessment on agreed routes only, and disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair. In any event, even if there was an advantage to the applicants, the Commission failed to establish that the advantage was selective.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging on a subsidiary basis a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and AMS was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of Pau airport instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and AMS. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, the Commission failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through Pau airport’s (supposedly) below-cost payment flows. Finally, the Commission failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the grant of the aid.