EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-320/25: Action brought on 21 May 2025 – Condor Flugdienst v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0320

62025TN0320

May 21, 2025
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2025/3556

7.7.2025

(Case T-320/25)

(C/2025/3556)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Israel, J. Lang and T. Peevska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2024) 4729 final of 3 July 2024 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.11071 – DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA/MEF/ITA); (1)

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 139/20041, (2) failed to identify all markets concerned, assess all relevant facts and draw the right conclusions.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and committed a manifest error of assessment when it found that ITA’s long-term economic competitiveness was highly uncertain.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 when it accepted long-haul commitments that do not alleviate competition concerns.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by accepting short-haul commitments without factoring in the effects of a fundamentally different business strategy on the short-haul routes by the Short-Haul Remedy Taker on connecting long-haul traffic.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by accepting the LIN commitments without assessing the impact of the transfer of slots to the Short-Haul Remedy Taker on indirect long-haul routes ex-LIN.

(1)Summary of Commission Decision of 3 July 2024 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.11071 – DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA / MEF / ITA) (notified under document number C(2024) 4729) (OJ C 2025/1343).

(2)Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3556/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia