3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/26

(Case T-688/14)

2014/C 388/32

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Airport Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented by: R. Cafari Panico and F. Scarpellini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul, in its entirety, Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 whereby the European Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure in Case SA.21420 (2014/NN) concerning the setting up of the company Airport Handling SpA (‘the contested decision’);

—in the alternative, in the unlikely event that the Court decides that only some of the complaints raised in the present action should be upheld, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns those complaints;

—in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.

—The applicant argues that the contested decision is vitiated by the fact that the European Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling SpA was SEA Handling’s successor on the basis of a presumed economic connection between the two companies and, on the strength of that incorrect assumption, adopted the decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

2.Second plea in law, also alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.

—The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision was wrong in so far as the Commission held that the capitalisation of Airport Handling SpA could represent State aid incompatible with the market and, on the basis of that incorrect assumption, initiated a formal investigation procedure.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration.

—The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, failed to fulfil its obligation to carry out an impartial and thorough examination of the information in its possession, and failed to take account of the need to weigh up the interests involved.