Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/29

(Case C-176/09)

2009/C 180/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent and P. Kinsch, avocat)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Delete, in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1), the following phrase: ‘and to the airport with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’;

—Alternatively, annul the directive in its entirety;

—Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg raises two pleas in support of its action.

By its first plea, the applicant alleges a breach of the principle of non discrimination in so far as an airport such as that of Luxembourg-Findel, as a result of the extension of the scope of Directive 2009/12/EC to airports ‘with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’, finds itself subject to administrative and financial obligations which other airports in a comparable situation are able to avoid, without such difference in treatment being objectively justified. The applicant invokes in particular, in that regard, the situation of Hahn and Charleroi airports, serving the same catchment area as Findel airport and each generating a higher volume of passengers than Findel, but which are not subject to the same obligations. The existence of borders between the three airports can in no way justify that they be treated differently.

By its second plea, the applicant claims furthermore that the provision at issue does not comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. First, action at European level is not necessary so as to regulate a situation which could perfectly well have been regulated at national level as long as the threshold of 5 million passengers is not reached. Secondly, the application of the directive would result in supplementary procedures and costs which are not justified for an airport such as Findel, which has the sole particularity of having the highest passenger movement in a Member State, without that having a real relevance with regard to the objectives of the directive.

* * *

(1) OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11.