CELEX: 62018CN0379
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-379/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Land Berlin

201807200432012792018/C 276/373792018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180608282921Case C-379/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Land Berlin
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2810120180608EN0037281292Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Land Berlin
   (Case C-379/18)2018/C 276/37Language of the case: German
      Referring court
   
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   
      Defendant: Land Berlin
   
      Other parties: Berliner Flughafen Gesellschaft mbH; Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Is a national provision which provides that the system of airport charges decided upon by the airport managing body must be submitted to the independent supervisory authority for approval, without prohibiting the airport managing body and the airport user from setting charges different from those approved by the supervisory authority, compatible with Directive 2009/12/EC (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ 2009 L 70 p. 11), in particular Article 3, Article 6(3) to (5) and Article 11(1) and (7) thereof?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Is an interpretation of national law whereby an airport user is prevented from challenging the approval of the charging scheme by the independent supervisory authority, but can bring an action against the airport managing body and can plead in that action that the charges determined in the charging scheme are inequitable, compatible with the aforementioned Directive?
         
      (
         1
      )	OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11.