Case T‑818/14

Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA)

v

European Commission

(State aid — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA — Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market — Legally binding act — Limitation period — Economic nature of the ILS — Proportion of economic use of the installations — Incorrect numerical data — Request for adjustment — Determination of the present values — Obligation to state reasons — Distortions of competition — Legitimate expectations)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 25 January 2018

1.      State aid — General aid scheme approved by the Commission — Individual aid falling within the temporal scope of that scheme — Determination — Date of the legally binding measure requiring the competent national authority to grant the aid

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

3.      Competition — EU rules — Undertaking — Meaning — Exercise of an economic activity — Instrument increasing the landing accuracy of a plane — Included — No exercise of State prerogatives

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

4.      Acts of the institutions — Preamble — Binding legal force — None

5.      State aid — Meaning — Implementation of the private investor test — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

6.      State aid — Examination by the Commission — Possibility of the Commission using outside experts

(Art. 107(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999)

7.      State aid — Decision of the Commission finding aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Possible for the Commission to leave to national authorities the task of calculating the exact amount to be recovered

(Art. 108(2) TFEU)

8.      State aid — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Criteria for assessment — Scope of the burden of proof on the Commission

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

9.      State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 108 TFEU — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — None save in exceptional circumstances

(Arts 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU)

10.    Judicial proceedings — Costs — Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously — Conduct of an institution making a dispute more likely

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 72)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 94, 95)

3.      Any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity. In that regard, the control and supervision of air space are typically the activities of a public authority.

4.      As regards a ground approach instrument which uses a radio signal to increase the landing accuracy of an aircraft approaching a landing runway, that instrument, even if it were mandatory and though it contributes, like other systems, to the safety of landings, plays no part either in the control and supervision of airspace, or in the performance of any other public policy remit which might be exercised at an airport. It contributes to the delivery of the services offered by a civil airport in a competitive context to airlines within the framework of its general activity, which is an economic activity. The absence of such equipment has the result only that, in certain meteorological conditions, the airlines using an airport will cancel their flights or redirect them to other airports possessing such equipment. Accordingly, an airport which is not equipped with such equipment is in a less favourable competitive position than an airport which has installed such equipment, but that finding does not allow that equipment to escape being classified as an activity of an economic nature.

(see paras 97, 99, 100, 102, 103)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 114)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 125-127)

7.      It is not apparent either from Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] or from the case-law that the Commission is required to consult independent experts in order to determine the method to be used or to check its calculations and have them validated.

(see para. 158)

8.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 193)

9.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 208, 210, 211)

10.    See the text of the decision.

(see paras 216, 217)

11.    Under Article 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order a party, even if successful, to pay some or all of the costs, if this appears justified by the conduct of that party, including before the proceedings were brought, especially if he has made the opposite party incur costs which the Court holds to be unreasonable or vexatious. The same is true in a case where the Commission made numerous clerical errors which may have led the applicant to believe that it was justified in challenging the validity of the contested decision and which made it more difficult for the Court to review the contested decision.

(see paras 227, 228)