19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/42

(Case T-292/21)

(2021/C 289/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: J. Wileur, J. Poitras, J. Ruiz Calzado and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the Application admissible;

—order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by the Applicant because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015 in Case T-43/11 Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Singapore Airlines Limited v Commission, and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU:

—(i) an amount equal to the unpaid default interest, i.e., interest on the sum of EUR 74 800 000, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 11 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the amount already paid by the Commission (EUR 1 635 368), which results in an amount of EUR 15 185 410 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate;

—(ii) an amount equal to the interest due on the unpaid default interest for the period between 9 February 2016 and 1 February 2021 calculated based on the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an additional interest amount of EUR 3 407 356 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; and

—(iii) compound interest, i.e., compound interest (‘capitalisation des intérêts’) on the amount of the unpaid default interest and additional interest amount totaling EUR 18 592 766 (or any other amount which the General Court considers appropriate), for the period between 2 February 2021 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of all unpaid interest amounts at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 % or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate.

—in addition or in the alternative, annul in whole or in part pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation for failing to pay default interest and compound interest.

—order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the European Union, represented by the Commission, is non-contractually liable to pay compensation, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, equivalent to the amount of default interest, which the Commission should have paid to the applicant pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU when repaying the principal amount of the fine provisionally paid in complying with the Commission decision in Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight, after that decision was annulled by the judgment of the Court in Case T-43/11 Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Singapore Airlines Limited v Commission. The applicant also requests compensation equal to the interest on the amount of default interest, which the Commission failed to pay, and compound interest from the date of the applicant’s request to the Commission to pay the interest amounts owing.

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s request for interest erred in law in finding that the applicant’s request was time-barred. The European Commission’s finding is inconsistent with the case-law and unsupported by the judgment of the Court of 20 January 2021 in the Case C-301/19 Commission v Printeos (‘Printeos’) (EU:C:2021:39).

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission erred in law in relying exclusively on Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1) and failed to take into account the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU as interpreted by the EU Courts in Printeos.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 is insufficiently motivated as it lacks an adequate statement of reasons in breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.