CELEX: 62017TN0607
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-607/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — Volotea v Commission

20.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 392/34
            
         Action brought on 6 September 2017 — Volotea v Commission
   (Case T-607/17)
   (2017/C 392/43)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Volotea, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Carpagnano, lawyer, and M. Nordmann, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul, in part, the European Commission decision of 29 July 2016 concerning State aid SA.33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy as compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on fives pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misinterpreted the meaning of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant alleges, inter alia, that the Commission misinterpreted the concept of the beneficiary. It further submits that the Commission was wrong to classify airport operators as mere ‘intermediaries’ between the region and the airlines, meaning that it failed duly to consider whether such operators received an economic advantage. In addition, funding was not selective. The Commission furthermore misinterpreted the meaning of distortion of competition and effects on trade.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misinterpreted the meaning of justification of State aid.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant disputes the Commission’s assertion that the framework relating to services of general economic interest does not apply to the activities at issue in the present case. It further alleges that the Aviation Guidelines of 2005 may justify the funding in question.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that, in ordering the recovery of the allegedly unlawful aid, the Commission failed to take the legitimate interests of the applicant into account. The Commission, lacking a clear practice with regard to indirect aid, should not have insisted upon recovery.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission mishandled the investigation since it did not diligently and impartially investigate the contested measures.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission, it is argued, did not conduct a proper analysis with regard to the market economy operator test, although required by law and requested in various submissions by third parties.
                        
                     
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In this regard, it is alleged that the Commission did not discuss some important legal or factual matters, gave reasons that were not unequivocal, failed to have regard to certain important arguments raised by third parties, and made statements which were contradictory in nature.