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-894/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Air France v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0894

62016TN0894

December 19, 2016
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

13.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/26

(Case T-894/16)

(2017/C 046/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: R. Sermier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1698 of 20 February 2014 concerning measures SA.22932 (11/C) (ex NN 37/07) implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport (notified under document C(2014) 870);

order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

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 flaws in the contested decision as regards the aid from the département of Bouches-du-Rhône to the ‘Marseille-Provence 2’ (MP 2) terminal. In particular,

the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards:

the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic;

the objective of boosting the region’s economic development;

the aid is unnecessary.

2.Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the agreement to purchase advertising space with the company Airport Marketing Services.

3.Third plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the passenger charges for the terminal MP2.

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