Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0764

    Case T-764/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

    OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 43–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    29/12/2015
    Date lodged:
    29/12/2015
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    German
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    22.2.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 68/43

    Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

    (Case T-764/15)

    (2016/C 068/55)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.32833 (2011/C) (ex 20111NN) — Hahn Airport;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant submits, in essence, the following:

    —

    procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014,

    —

    incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision,

    —

    incorrect legal assessment of the measures in favour of the airport concerned in so far as certain measures were not classified as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) of TFEU and others were classified as State aid which is compatible with the common market,

    —

    failure to take into consideration that all the aid referred to in the contested decision in favour of the airport concerned was, in end effect, passed on to Ryanair as the most important user of that airport.
    Top