- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-379/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Directive 2009/12/EC — Articles 3 and 6 — Article 11(1) and (7) — Airport charges — Protection of airport users’ rights — Whether it is possible for the airport managing body to agree charges lower than those approved by the independent supervisory authority — Remedies available to an airport user — Collateral challenge before a civil court giving judgment on the basis of equitable criteria)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0379
62018CA0379
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
27.1.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 27/5
(Case C-379/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Directive 2009/12/EC - Articles 3 and 6 - Article 11(1) and (7) - Airport charges - Protection of airport users’ rights - Whether it is possible for the airport managing body to agree charges lower than those approved by the independent supervisory authority - Remedies available to an airport user - Collateral challenge before a civil court giving judgment on the basis of equitable criteria)
(2020/C 27/05)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Defendant: Land Berlin
Interveners: Berliner Flughafen GmbH, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Operative part of the judgment
1.Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, in particular Article 3, Article 6(5)(a) and Article 11(1) and (7) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision that allows an airport managing body to determine, together with an airport user, airport charges different from those set by that body and approved by the independent supervisory authority, within the meaning of that directive.
2.Directive 2009/12 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law whereby an airport user is prevented from challenging directly the decision of the independent supervisory authority approving the charging system, but can bring an action against the airport managing body before a civil court and can plead in that action only that the charges determined in the charging system that that user must pay are inequitable.
(*) Language of the case: German.