CELEX: 62016TN0712
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-712/16: Action brought on 5 October 2016 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/28
            
         Action brought on 5 October 2016 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-712/16)
   (2016/C 462/36)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 in Case No M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss — Commission decision on Lufthansa’s request for a partial waiver of the commitments concerning the Zurich-Stockholm and Zurich-Warsaw routes;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      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 that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and as a result breaches the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations by refusing to review and/or waive certain commitments imposed by Commission Decision of 4 July 2005 in Case No COMP/M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss.
               
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused its powers in circumventing the administrative procedure under Regulation 1/2003.