This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62025TN0522
Case T-522/25: Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Luxair v Commission
Case T-522/25: Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Luxair v Commission
Case T-522/25: Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Luxair v Commission
OJ C, C/2025/4905, 15.9.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4905/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/4905 |
15.9.2025 |
Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Luxair v Commission
(Case T-522/25)
(C/2025/4905)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA (Munsbach, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marchand, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 29 November 2024 (decision on the implementation of the commitments – purchaser approval) based on paragraphs 35 and 37 of the commitments attached to the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2024 based on Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, (1) in Case M.11071 - DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA / MEF / ITA (the ‘contested decision’) (version published on the Commission website on 20 May 2025), in so far as it
|
|
— |
alternatively, should these parts be found indivisible from the remainder of the contested decision, annul the contested decision in its entirety; and |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error in its assessment under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation by misapplying the commitments’ purchaser-approval and suitability criteria in approving EASYJET as the single short-haul remedy taker at Milan-Linate. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons measured against the commitments (Article 296 TFEU). |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging excess of powers under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and misuse of the purchaser-approval procedure, as well as breach of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and good administration, and violation of Article 296 TFEU. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision implements an unlawful Milan-Linate remedy architecture (derived illegality). |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4905/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)