Appeal brought on 9 June 2014 by the Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) v European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
(Case C-281/14 P)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (represented by: M. Muscardini, G. Greco and G. Carullo, avvocati)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
after establishing that SACBO has a right of action and that the decision of 18 March 2013 is an actionable measure, set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 and accordingly — if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — uphold in full the form of order sought at first instance, with all the attendant legal consequences, as follows: after establishing that there was no intention to evade payment and that the co-financed activity was not artificially subdivided, annul the decision adopted on 18 March 2013 by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) to the extent that it characterised as ineligible the external costs relating to Activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and consequently reduced the joint funding available and requested repayment of EUR 158 517.54;
order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
I. In support of the appeal against the order by which the General Court declared the action inadmissible.
I.1-. Regarding the finding that SACBO lacks legal standing. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the following provisions: fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; Articles 6 and 13 ECHR; Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article III.8.2 of Decision C (2010) 4456; second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to an inadequate and/or contradictory statement of reasons and decision; Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU.
– the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that, as a co-financer, SACBO is responsible for the entire investment and the implementation thereof and is accordingly affected by all aspects of the contested decision, that is to say, by the non-recovery of the investments made, by the sums to be repaid, and by the complaints set out in that decision, all of which relate to SACBO’s conduct;
– infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU, since the General Court failed to find that the recovery by ENAC (l’Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile) (Italian Civil Aviation Authority) of the joint funding is obligatory under EU law, with non-repayment constituting unlawful State aid;
– the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s role in the process which led to the adoption of the contested decision;
– the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s legal standing, arising from the harm done to its image as a result of the contested decision.
I .2-. Regarding the finding that the contested decision is not an actionable measure. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and infringement of Article III.3.6 and Article III.3.9 of the financing decision; infringement and/or misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to a contradictory statement of reasons.
– the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the financing decision also constitutes the repayment obligation as it clearly and definitively establishes the level of funding and the sums to be repaid;
– the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the contested decision constitutes the final closing act in the funding reduction process, independent of and separate from the subsequent stage of actual recovery.
II. Reproduction of the pleas in law relied upon at first instance 1 for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
________________________1 OJ C 207, p. 46.