ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
29 April 2024 (*)
(Action for annulment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Prohibition for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union – Article 3d of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Act not amenable to review – Inadmissibility)
In Case T‑277/23,
Global 8 Airlines, established in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan), represented by E. Novicāne and K. Novicāns, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by M. Bruti Liberati, M. Carpus Carcea and B. Sasinowska, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of D. Spielmann, President, R. Mastroianni (Rapporteur) and S. L. Kalėda, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written part of the procedure, and in particular:
– the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission by separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 15 September 2023,
– the applicant’s observations on the objection of inadmissibility lodged at the Court Registry on 30 October 2023,
– the application to intervene made by the Federal Republic of Germany lodged at the Court Registry on 4 September 2023,
makes the following
Order
1 By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Global 8 Airlines, seeks the annulment of the decision adopted by the European Commission, of which it was informed on 20 March 2023, relating to the inclusion of two light business jets owned by it on a list of aircraft subject to a prohibition to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union, pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/334 of 28 February 2022 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 57, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’).
Background to the dispute
2 The present case arises in the context of restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
3 The applicant is a limited liability company incorporated under Kyrgyz law. It is a commercial airline company, entered in the companies register of the Kyrgyz Republic (‘the register of the Kyrgyz Republic’), from which it is apparent that it is owned by Mr D.L. and managed by Mr U.M., both Latvian nationals.
4 On 25 February 2022, the Council of the European Union adopted, on the basis of Article 29 TEU, Decision (CFSP) 2022/327 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 48, p. 1) and, on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, Regulation (EU) 2022/328 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 49, p. 1), in order to prohibit, inter alia, the provision of technical assistance and other services related to the goods and technology suited for use in aviation, directly or indirectly, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Russia or for use in Russia.
5 On 28 February 2022, in the context of new restrictive measures concerning, inter alia, the closure of EU airspace to certain categories of aircraft, the Council adopted, on the basis of Article 29 TEU, Decision (CFSP) 2022/335 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 57, p. 4) and, on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, Regulation 2022/334 (OJ 2022 L 57, p. 1).
6 Article 3d of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as inserted by Article 1(2) of Regulation 2022/334, in the version applicable to the present case (‘Article 3d’), is worded as follows:
‘1. It shall be prohibited for any aircraft operated by Russian air carriers, including as a marketing carrier in code-sharing or blocked-space arrangements, or for any Russian registered aircraft, or for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in the case of an emergency landing or an emergency overflight.
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities may authorise an aircraft to land in, take off from, or overfly, the territory of the Union if the competent authorities have determined that such landing, take-off or overflight is required for humanitarian purposes or for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this Regulation.
4. The Member State or Member States concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 3 within two weeks of the authorisation.’
7 Article 3e of Regulation No 833/2014, as inserted by Article 1(2) of Regulation 2022/334 and then amended by Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/428 of 15 March 2022 (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 13), in the version applicable in the present case (‘Article 3e’), is worded as follows:
‘1. The Network Manager for air traffic management network functions of the single European sky shall support the Commission and the Member States in ensuring the implementation of, and compliance with, Article 3d. The Network Manager shall, in particular, reject all flight plans filed by aircraft operators indicating an intent to carry out activities over the territory of the Union that constitute a violation of this Regulation, such that the pilot is not permitted to fly.
2. The Network Manager shall regularly supply to the Commission and the Member States, based on the analysis of flight plans, reports on the implementation of Article 3d.’
8 It is apparent from Article 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 96, p. 20), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 34), that Member States are to entrust the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), which is a regionally oriented international air traffic organisation, or another impartial and competent body, with the performance of air traffic flow management, subject to appropriate oversight arrangements. By way of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/709 of 6 May 2019 on the appointment of the network manager for air traffic management (ATM) network functions of the single European sky (OJ 2019 L 120, p. 27), Eurocontrol was reappointed as network manager for the 2020-2029 period. Under Article 2(1) of Implementing Decision 2019/709, Eurocontrol ‘shall perform the tasks necessary for the execution of the ATM network functions referred to in Article 7 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/123 [of 24 January 2019 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of air traffic management (ATM) network functions and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ 2019 L 28, p. 1)]’. Among those tasks, Article 7(1)(d) of Implementing Regulation 2019/123 confers on the network operator the task of ‘[coordinating] the air traffic flow and capacity management’, which, from an operational point of view, includes an automated checking process of the flight plans which is performed by Eurocontrol’s Integrated Initial Flight Plan Processing System. Under the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 551/2004, as amended, in the version applicable in the present case, those tasks are to be executed on behalf of the Member States and stakeholders.
9 By two decisions dated 9 September 2022 and 20 February 2023, respectively, the applicant’s management board approved the purchase of two aircraft with the manufacturer’s serial numbers RB274 and RB120 (‘the two aircraft’). The purchase was concluded between the applicant and a Russian company, whose sole shareholders were Russian nationals.
10 On 12 September 2022 and on 9 March 2023, respectively, the two aircraft were entered in the register of the Kyrgyz Republic under registration numbers EX‑88012 and EX‑88011 as being in the ownership of the applicant.
11 Since their entry in the register of the Kyrgyz Republic, the aircraft registered under EX‑88012 has performed several flights, inter alia, from Russia to the European Union, and the aircraft registered under EX‑88011 has not had any registered movements.
12 On 24 February 2023, the applicant submitted to Eurocontrol a flight plan for the aircraft registered under EX‑88012 for a route from Augsburg (Germany) to Budapest (Hungary), which was rejected on the same day by means of an automated message.
13 On 15 March 2023, the applicant sent an email to Eurocontrol seeking clarification of Eurocontrol’s message of 24 February 2023.
14 By an email of 20 March 2023, Eurocontrol, first, confirmed to the applicant that the aircraft registered under EX‑88012 appeared on a list of aircraft covered by Article 3d (‘the list’), provided to Eurocontrol by the Commission and, second, invited it to contact the Commission’s mailbox (‘the mailbox’), managed by the Directorate-General (DG) for Mobility and Transport, should it wish to request the delisting of the aircraft in question.
15 On 21 March 2023, the applicant sent an email to the mailbox in order to seek a clarification of its position and, in essence, a review of its situation as regards, inter alia, the lifting of the flight ban for the two aircraft, their removal from the list as well as the communication to Eurocontrol of updated information concerning the applicant. It also asked to be informed, where appropriate, of the national authority that is competent to process its request for review.
16 By an email of 28 March 2023, the member of staff of DG Mobility and Transport in charge of the mailbox informed the applicant that the two aircraft were subject to a flight ban under Article 3c of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, in the version applicable to the present case, and Article 3d. He also informed the applicant that that flight ban had to be maintained as well as of the reasons for that.
17 By an email of 6 April 2023, the applicant replied to the member of staff of DG Mobility and Transport, providing him with additional information concerning its situation. On 25 April 2023, that member of staff again informed the applicant that there were no grounds justifying the lifting of the flight ban at issue in respect of the two aircraft.
Forms of order sought
18 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested decision;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
19 In its plea of inadmissibility, raised under Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Commission contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action as manifestly inadmissible;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
20 In its observations on the objection of inadmissibility, the applicant claims that the Court should reject the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission.
Law
21 Under Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, on application by the defendant, the Court may decide on inadmissibility or lack of competence without going to the substance of the case. In the present case, as the Commission has applied for a decision on inadmissibility, the Court, finding that it has sufficient information from the documents in the case file, has decided to rule on that application without taking further steps in the proceedings.
22 The Commission contends that the present action is inadmissible on the ground that the contested decision does not constitute an act against which an action for annulment may be brought, since it does not produce binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant.
23 In the first place, the Commission submits that the contested decision does not exist and, in any event, that it cannot be precisely identified.
24 In the second place, the Commission states that the contested decision cannot be the subject of an action for annulment, since it should be regarded, where appropriate, as a provisional measure which, in any event, does not produce binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant.
25 In the third place, the Commission claims that the act adversely affecting the applicant is attributable only to the Member States, in so far as only the Member States are empowered not to authorise flights of aircraft subject to the flight bans referred to in Article 3c of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, in the version applicable in the present case, and in Article 3d. According to the Commission, its DG Mobility and Transport is acting merely as an information gatherer and distributor and the list is rather the result of a coordinated effort with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Member States, aimed at assisting national authorities in the application of flight bans under that regulation. More specifically, that DG and the EASA reached an agreement with the authorities of the Member States to coordinate information flows from national authorities and thus facilitate the gathering and processing of that information, in particular, in relation to any ‘non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body’. The aim of that agreement was to prepare, in particular, a list of aircraft subject to the flight ban referred to in Article 3d, so that Member States, through Eurocontrol, take coordinated decisions on the processing of individual flight plans, while having, in any event, continuous access to that list in order to update it on a regular basis or to request amendments to it.
26 Thus, according to the Commission, Eurocontrol applied the flight ban in respect of the aircraft registered under EX‑88012, in line with the instructions of the Member States to base such refusal decisions on the list. Moreover, in accordance with Article 3e, Eurocontrol is to supply regular reports on rejected flight plans.
27 The Commission also submits that the action for annulment was directed against the wrong act and to a court which has no jurisdiction to hear it. In any event, even if it were directed against a relevant act, the action would have to be dismissed because it would be time barred.
28 Lastly, according to the Commission, the action is devoid of purpose, in view of the general operating ban in the European Union, on safety grounds, imposed on air carriers entered in the register of the Kyrgyz Republic, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1543/2006 of 12 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council and as amended by Regulation (EC) No 910/2006 (OJ 2006 L 283, p. 27).
29 In its observations on the objection of inadmissibility, the applicant submits, first, that the mechanism providing for the establishment of the list is de facto binding on the Member States and Eurocontrol. Second, it claims that DG Mobility and Transport played a decisive role in the establishment, supervision of and compliance with that mechanism, which, in the applicant’s submission, is, moreover, confirmed by the conduct of Eurocontrol, that DG itself and the German authorities.
30 According to the applicant, it is apparent from the email exchanges it had with Eurocontrol that Eurocontrol is merely implementing what is provided for in the list, which is shared by DG Mobility and Transport. In addition, it is apparent from the email exchanges it had with a member of staff of the Commission that that institution was capable of including and removing the two aircraft from the list and, above all, of maintaining the flight ban. Moreover, in the applicant’s view, that is confirmed, in particular, by the email exchange which took place after the present action was brought, in which the applicant was asked to provide the identity documents and addresses of Mr L. and Mr M.
31 Furthermore, in the applicant’s submission, the position of the authorities of the Member States in respect of the nature and impact of the mechanism at issue is apparent, in particular, from the email of 31 July 2023 from an official of the German Federal Ministry of Digital and Transport, who, in response to an email from the applicant concerning the possibility of being given physical access to the two aircraft in order to carry out maintenance operations, informed that applicant that he had already approached the Commission for further clarification on the ownership of the aircraft and on their listing and that he would shortly provide the applicant with information in that regard.
32 Thus, the applicant submits that DG Mobility and Transport established a binding mechanism in order to ensure the implementation of the flight ban laid down in Article 3d. In that context, that DG, which, according to the applicant, is responsible for endorsing the list, treated the Member States and Eurocontrol as entities responsible for implementing it.
33 Lastly, as regards the Commission’s argument that the action is devoid of purpose, the applicant contends that it still has the option of operating non-commercial flights, inasmuch as the operating ban under Regulation No 474/2006, relied on by the Commission, relates only to commercial flights.
34 As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the Courts of the European Union are to review the legality, inter alia, of acts of the Commission other than recommendations and opinions. In the present case, the Court therefore has jurisdiction to review, as the applicant requests, the legality of the contested decision, which is an act adopted by the Commission other than a recommendation or an opinion. Moreover, contrary to what the Commission claims, the general operating ban in the European Union, on safety grounds, imposed on air carriers entered in the register of the Kyrgyz Republic under Regulation No 1543/2006 does not render the present action devoid of purpose. The act at issue cannot be regarded as non-existent or as never having been adopted in the light of that regulation.
35 According to settled case-law, an action for annulment is available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in that applicant’s legal position (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission, 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 9; of 26 January 2010, Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, C‑362/08 P, EU:C:2010:40, paragraph 51; and of 19 December 2012, Commission v Planet, C‑314/11 P, EU:C:2012:823, paragraph 94).
36 As is apparent from the case-law of the EU Courts, in order to determine whether an act produces legal effects, it is necessary to look in particular to the substance of that act as well as the intention of its author (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 July 2008, Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, paragraph 42) and to assess those effects on the basis of objective criteria, such as the content of that act, taking into account, as appropriate, the context in which it was adopted and the powers of the institution which adopted it (see judgment of 22 April 2021, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission, C‑572/18 P, EU:C:2021:317, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
37 In the present case, the application for annulment relates to an alleged Commission decision to which Eurocontrol’s email of 20 March 2023 refers. It is therefore necessary to examine whether that act, in the light of its content, the factual and legal context of which it forms part and the intention and powers of the Commission, may be classified as a decision adversely affecting the applicant.
38 By an email of 20 March 2023, Eurocontrol confirmed to the applicant that the aircraft registered under EX‑88012 was on the list that the DG Mobility and Transport had provided to it (see paragraph 14 above). In that regard, according to the applicant, that DG, by preparing that list, in essence, established on its own initiative a binding mechanism, the purpose of which was to put in place a unified EU-wide assessment of the ownership and control of aircraft concerned, with the aim of ensuring the effective implementation of the flight ban laid down in Article 3d. In that context, it considers, in essence, that, as regards the two aircraft, the Commission could be regarded as the author of the decision imposing the flight ban referred to in Article 3d by including those two aircraft on the list, with the Member States and Eurocontrol merely applying that ban.
39 That analysis cannot be followed, since the legal context of the processing of flight plans and the division of the respective roles of the Member States, Eurocontrol and the Commission in that process preclude the contested decision from being regarded as a measure intended to have binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 35 above.
40 In that regard, it should be noted that the provisions contained in Article 3d are of general application and must be implemented by the competent national authorities, which, where appropriate, adopt individual measures to enforce them. Moreover, under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, in the version applicable in the present case, the Member States are also to lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of that regulation and are to take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.
41 Thus, it is for the Member States to ensure the implementation of Article 3d, inter alia, in the context of the processing of flight plans submitted by the aircraft operators concerned.
42 That consideration is not called into question by the fact that Article 3e(1) provides that Eurocontrol is to implement Article 3d on behalf of the Member States, in particular by rejecting flight plans (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). Furthermore, under Article 3e(2), Eurocontrol is to regularly supply reports on the application of Article 3d to the Commission and to the Member States, based on the analysis of flight plans.
43 It follows from those considerations that a flight ban under Article 3d is not an act attributable to the Commission.
44 The fact that certain aircraft are included on the list provided by DG Mobility and Transport to Eurocontrol does not call that conclusion into question.
45 As regards the Commission’s role in preparing the list, it must be noted that it is apparent from the case file that, with a view to facilitating the implementation of Article 3d, given Eurocontrol’s role as network manager, as defined in Article 3e, DG Mobility and Transport and the EASA established, with the authorities of the Member States, a mechanism for coordinating the information flow from the competent national authorities, other entities and reliable sources on aircraft controlled or chartered by Russian persons or entities. The objective of that information flow is to establish, inter alia, a list of aircraft subject to the flight ban laid down in Article 3d, so that Member States take coordinated decisions on the processing of individual flight plans submitted by the aircraft operators concerned, the central system for processing applications for flight plans being managed, on behalf of the Member States, by Eurocontrol, in accordance with the EU legislation (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).
46 Thus, it must be noted that, contrary to what the applicant claims, the preparation of the list, which is merely a compilation of information from various sources, is not a decision allegedly taken by or on behalf of the Commission.
47 As is apparent from Article 3d, the Commission is not empowered to impose a flight ban on aircraft to which that article applies. The implementation and enforcement of the EU restrictive measures are the responsibility of the Member States (see paragraph 40 above), with the Commission’s services merely assisting those States, by exercising in particular the role of information gatherer and distributor, by means of preparing the list. More specifically, the power to reject the flight plans of individual aircraft operators is vested in the Member States and exercised, on their behalf, by Eurocontrol, in accordance with Article 3e and in the light of the relevant information available to it.
48 In the light of all the foregoing, the Court concludes, like the Commission, that the contested decision does not have binding legal effects on the applicant’s legal position, since such effects follow from the decision imposing the flight ban laid down in Article 3d and not from the listing of the two aircraft, all the more so since the Commission is not empowered to adopt, for example, decisions rejecting flight plans, the action of its services being limited to the gathering of information and the dissemination of the list on the basis of the decisions of the competent national authorities.
49 That conclusion cannot be called into question by the applicant’s arguments that the leading role of DG Mobility and Transport in the establishment, supervision of and compliance with a mechanism designed to encourage a unified, EU-wide assessment of the actual ownership or direct or indirect control of aircraft concerned is confirmed by the actual conduct of that DG, Eurocontrol and the Federal Republic of Germany, respectively. In that regard, the applicant refers, in essence, to the email correspondence it had for a number of reasons with the three abovementioned entities and, in particular, with a member of staff of that DG.
50 As regards, more specifically, the emails sent by the member of staff of DG Mobility and Transport from the mailbox, it is important to point out, first of all, that there is no reference therein to any decision taken either by the Commission or by the EASA or to any provision conferring on the Commission the power to adopt a decision relating specifically to the flight ban regarding the two aircraft, and that the applicant has not succeeded in establishing the contrary. Although that member of staff provided, in the context of an exchange of views requested by the applicant, explanations concerning the reasons justifying the inclusion and maintenance of the two aircraft on the list, it is not apparent from the case file that those explanations were the result of any decision taken in that respect by the Commission or that, in any event, the Commission was empowered to impose a flight ban on the two aircraft under Article 3d.
51 The fact that those emails were sent in response to emails from the applicant, expressly requesting DG Mobility and Transport to state its position on the flight ban concerning the two aircraft, is not sufficient to regard the inclusion of the aircraft on the list as a decision-making act against which an action for annulment may be brought. The mere fact that correspondence, be it by letter or by email, is sent by an EU institution in response to a request made by its addressee is not such as to demonstrate the existence of an actionable measure pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 15 September 2022, PNB Banka v ECB, C‑326/21 P, not published, EU:C:2022:693, paragraph 92 and the case-law cited). That is all the more so where, as in the present case, that correspondence originates from a mere member of staff of the Commission.
52 The fact that, first, Eurocontrol and, second, the German authorities stated, still in response to emails from the applicant, that the applicant had to approach DG Mobility and Transport cannot support the applicant’s argument that, in the present case, the Commission had the power to adopt a binding act capable of having binding legal effects on the applicant.
53 Taking into account, for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 36 above, in particular, first, the content and substance of the contested decision and the Commission’s intention, and, second, its powers and the context in which it was adopted, it cannot thus be concluded that the contested decision has binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position.
54 Furthermore, since it is for the Member States to ensure the implementation of Article 3d, in particular, in the context of the processing of the flight plans submitted by the aircraft operators concerned, it is also for the Member States, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in that field. That finding is not called into question by the fact that the Member States have entrusted certain tasks, in the context of the implementation of Articles 3d and 3e, to Eurocontrol, which carries them out on their behalf (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).
55 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the contested decision does not constitute an act against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 263 TFEU.
56 Accordingly, the Court upholds the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission and, consequently, dismisses the action as inadmissible, without it being necessary to rule on the other grounds of inadmissibility raised by the Commission.
The application to intervene
57 In accordance with Article 144(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where the defendant lodges a plea of inadmissibility or of lack of competence, as provided in Article 130(1) of those rules, a decision on the application to intervene is not to be given until after the plea has been rejected or the decision on the plea reserved. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 142(2) of those rules, the intervention becomes devoid of purpose, inter alia, where the application is declared inadmissible.
58 Since the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission has been upheld in the present case and the present order consequently closes the proceedings, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany.
Costs
59 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene.
60 In accordance with Article 144(10) of the Rules of Procedure, the Federal Republic of Germany must bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Federal Republic of Germany’s application to intervene.
3. Global 8 Airlines is to bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.
4. The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.
Luxembourg, 29 April 2024.