Notice for the OJ

 

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-196/04)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited, Dublin, Ireland, represented by Mr D. Gleeson and Mr A. Collins Barristers and Dr V. Power, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    Annul the decision of 12 February 2004 concerning the advantages authorised by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair at the time of its installation at Charleroi.

-     Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant company is an airline which specialises in low fares flights. On the occasion of the establishment by the applicant of a base at Brussels South Charleroi Airport the Walloon Region of Belgium implemented a number of aid measures in favour of the applicant. By the contested decision the Commission found that a part of these measures, namely a reduction in airport landing charges as well as discounts on ground handling services, constituted state aid incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87 EC. The same decision declared a number of other aid measures granted by the airport to the applicant compatible with the common market subject to several conditions.

In support of its application for the annulment of this decision, the applicant submits that the duty to give reasons under Article 253 EC was infringed. In particular the applicant claims that the contested decision fails to provide reasons for treating the Walloon Region and the airport as independent entities, even though the region owns and controls the airport. Further, the applicant claims that no reasons are given for treating the region as a legislator/regulator and not as an airport owner, and that the Commission failed to consider evidence of the behaviour of other airports and failed to assess the airport's business plan in a correct manner.

The applicant also considers that there has been a misapplication of Article 87 EC because not all elements of the first paragraph of that article were satisfied; the agreement does not amount to State aid when viewed objectively; and the Commission failed to analyse the situation from the perspective of both the alleged benefactor and beneficiary.

____________