12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/20

(Case T-404/07)

(2008/C 8/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 8 May 2006 followed by a letter of formal notice of 31 July 2007;

—order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible; and

—take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position, after having been invited to do so under Article 232 EC, on the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 8 May 2006 regarding i) unlawful state aid allegedly granted to Air France by France in form of differentiated airport charges charged by the French airports depending on the destination of the flights, or ii) in the alternative, anti-competitive discrimination in violation of Article 82 EC in favour of Air France, should the French airports be considered to have acted autonomously.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission was under an obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint received in order to:

—adopt a decision either declaring that the measures in question did not amount to state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or declaring that the measures were to be considered state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, but compatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) EC, or

—to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission was required, upon receipt of the applicant's subsidiary complaint that competition law had been infringed, either to initiate a procedure regarding the subject of the complaint or to adopt a definitive decision rejecting the complaint, after having given the applicant the opportunity to comment.

The applicant further alleges that under the circumstances and in view of the Commission's familiarity with the issues involved, the period of fourteen months between the applicant's complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

Finally, the applicant contends that Article 232 EC entitles an undertaking to bring an action against the Commission's failure to adopt measures which would have been of direct and individual concern to it, and that the measures which the Commission failed to adopt in the present case were of direct and individual concern to the applicant as a competitor of Air France.