Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0492

Case T-492/15: Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

IO C 363, 3.11.2015, p. 41–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.11.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/41

Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-492/15)

(2015/C 363/50)

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.21121 (C 29/2008) (ex NN 54/2007) — Flughafen Hahn and Ryanair;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

—

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

—

an 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,

—

misrepresentation of the facts of the case, since the Commission drew an incorrect picture of the case by not having regard to certain facts,

—

manifest contradictions in the contested decision,

—

incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airport at issue in so far as, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU, certain measures were not classified as State aid and others were classified as State aid in conformity with the internal market;

—

incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airline at issue, since they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU.
Top