Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-522/20, Carpatair v Commission

(Case C-245/23 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, Δικηγόρος)

Other parties to the proceedings: Carpatair SA, European Commission, Societatea Naţională "Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara - Traian Vuia" SA (AITTV)

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-522/20, Carpatair SA v European Commission;

dismiss the action brought by Carpatair for annulment of European Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428¹ of 24 February 2020 on the State Aid SA.31662 – C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport – Wizz Air, and

order Carpatair to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Wizz Air both before the General Court and in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Alternatively:

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-522/20, Carpatair SA v European Commission;

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration, and

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.

First ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the evidence and violated an essential procedural requirement in its findings of a causality link between the 2008 and 2010 agreements between Wizz Air and the airport and alleged substantial effects suffered by Carpatair.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court failed to state reasons for the existence of a substantial effect suffered by Carpatair as a result of the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication and of an interest to act regarding the same measure.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court made an error of law in its finding that the Commission’s finding that the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication was non-selective was flawed.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court made an error of law in its finding that the ex post report on the profitability of the 2008 and 2010 agreements which was based on ex ante data was irrelevant.

____________

¹ OJ 2021, L 308, p. 1.