(Case T-296/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the European Commission’s decision;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty, in so far as they relate to, and directly or indirectly regulate, the conditions for consenting to mergers, including, in particular, Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and the provisions for their implementation, including, in particular, Article 6(1)(b) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 139/2004, by failing to carry out a full assessment of the negative effects of the concentration on competition, including, inter alia, an assessment of the effects of the concentration on the relevant markets determined on the basis of the O&D model. An assessment of the concentration within the O&D model, however, would bring to light a series of distortions of competition caused by that concentration.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the effects of the concentration in relation to the possibility of providing passenger air transport services and in relation to the airports concerned by the concentration, thereby committing a gross and manifest error of assessment. A properly conducted analytical examination of the concentration would necessarily lead to the conclusion that its realisation will give rise to a series of negative effects on competition, including the creation of a dominant position for Lufthansa at certain airports.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Regulation No 95/93 by infringing the principles of neutrality, transparency and non-discrimination in relation to the allocation of slots at certain airports.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers by failing to examine whether the alleged efficiency gains occasioned by the Transaction counteract its negative effects on competition.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for their implementation by imposing obligations on Lufthansa which do not counteract the significant distortion of competition caused by the Transaction.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by failing to take into consideration the distortion of competition in the internal market occasioned by the Transaction in the context of the State aid granted to Air Berlin.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its Decision.