Action brought on 20 December 2013 – SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA

(Case T-692/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio (BG), Italy) (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, lawyers)

Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

primarily: annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517.54, with all attendant legal consequences;

in the alternative: declare that there was neither any fraudulent subdivision of nor any intent to avoid the activity for which co-financing was provided and, accordingly, annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517.54, with all attendant legal consequences;

in any event: recalculate the reduction in financing decided on by the Commission to an amount which is considered more appropriate in the light of the principle of proportionality;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the same as in Case T-270/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA (OJ C 207 of 20 July 2013, p. 46).

It should be noted in this regard that, in relation to the present proceedings, both defendants have claimed that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against a measure which, in their view, is not final.

According to the applicant, it has brought an action against the decision adopted by TEN-T EA on 23 October 2013 as a purely precautionary, defensive, measure in order to draw attention once more to the unlawfulness of the decision to reduce financing.

The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put forward in Case T-270/13.