|
26.1.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/49 |
Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-433/07)
(2008/C 22/93)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 22 December 2006 followed by a letter of formal notice of 2 August 2007; |
|
— |
to order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible; |
|
— |
to take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position, after having been invited to do so, under Article 232 EC, on the basis of the applicant's complaint filed on 22 December 2006, regarding unlawful aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services (‘OA/OAS’) following an arbitration ruling of the Greek Supreme Court, ordering the Greek State to pay OA/OAS EUR 563 million for allegedly unpaid services and the cost of relocation to Athens' new airport.
The applicant puts forward that the difference between the amounts owed by the Greek State to OA/OAS as approximately assessed in Commission Decision 2003/372/EC (1) and the compensation for damages awarded to OA/OAS by the ruling of 20 December 2006 constitutes an advantage within the meaning of state aid rules, granted to the company. The grant of such advantage is attributable, according to the applicant, to the Greek State because the arbitration Court has acted as an organ of the State.
The applicant further submits that the Commission was under a duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint received in order to either adopt a decision declaring that the State measures did not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or that those measures were to be classified as aid within the meaning of the said provision but were compatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) EC, or to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
The applicant further submits that the period of seven months which elapsed between the applicant's complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.
(1) Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under document number C(2002) 4831) (OJ, L 132, p. 1).