Case C-288/11 P

Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — State aids — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic activity — Airport infrastructure construction — Runway’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 19 December 2012

1. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Discretion of the Commission — Possibility to adopt guidelines — Economic and competitive development of the airports sector covered by the guidelines — Effects — Taking into account, by the Commission, of the factual and legal situation prevailing at the time of the adoption of its decision

   (Art. 88 EC)

2. Competition — EU rules — Addressees — Undertakings — Concept — Exercise of an economic activity — Operation of airport infrastructure — Construction or enlargement of runways — Included

   (Art. 87(1) EC)

3. Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

4. Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid ground of appeal — Rejection

5. State aid — Role conferred on the Commission by the Treaty — Judicial review

   (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

6. Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 37-39, 64)

2.  In the context of competition law, any activity consisting in offering goods or services on a given market is an economic activity. An undertaking operating a regional airport is engaged in an economic activity where it offers airport services in return for remuneration gained from, inter alia, airport fees on the regional airport services market. Since the construction of a new runway cannot be dissociated from the operation of the airport infrastructure, it constitutes an economic activity falling within the scope of EU law on State aid.

   The fact that an activity is not engaged in by private operators or that it is unprofitable are irrelevant criteria in regard to the classification of that activity as an economic activity. First, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed and, secondly, any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity. It follows from this that whether or not an activity is economic in nature does not depend on the private or public status of the entity engaged in it or the profitability of that activity.

   (see paras 40, 43, 44, 50)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 51, 52, 74)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 68)

5.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 78, 79)

6.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 83)

Case C-288/11 P

Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — State aids — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic activity — Airport infrastructure construction — Runway’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 19 December 2012

1. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Discretion of the Commission — Possibility to adopt guidelines — Economic and competitive development of the airports sector covered by the guidelines — Effects — Taking into account, by the Commission, of the factual and legal situation prevailing at the time of the adoption of its decision

   (Art. 88 EC)

2. Competition — EU rules — Addressees — Undertakings — Concept — Exercise of an economic activity — Operation of airport infrastructure — Construction or enlargement of runways — Included

   (Art. 87(1) EC)

3. Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

4. Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid ground of appeal — Rejection

5. State aid — Role conferred on the Commission by the Treaty — Judicial review

   (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

6. Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 37-39, 64)

2.  In the context of competition law, any activity consisting in offering goods or services on a given market is an economic activity. An undertaking operating a regional airport is engaged in an economic activity where it offers airport services in return for remuneration gained from, inter alia, airport fees on the regional airport services market. Since the construction of a new runway cannot be dissociated from the operation of the airport infrastructure, it constitutes an economic activity falling within the scope of EU law on State aid.

   The fact that an activity is not engaged in by private operators or that it is unprofitable are irrelevant criteria in regard to the classification of that activity as an economic activity. First, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed and, secondly, any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity. It follows from this that whether or not an activity is economic in nature does not depend on the private or public status of the entity engaged in it or the profitability of that activity.

   (see paras 40, 43, 44, 50)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 51, 52, 74)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 68)

5.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 78, 79)

6.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 83)