Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3084

10.6.2025

(Case T-274/25)

(C/2025/3084)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA (Munsbach, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marchand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Sections B.I and B.II of the commitments (with the exception of points 9 to 11 thereof), as set out in Annex II to Commission Decision C(2024) 4729 final of 3 July 2024 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.11071 – DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA / MEF / ITA) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) and, to the extent that those points cannot be severed, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision; and

—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission had violated the right to good administration by failing to provide the applicant with the information necessary to effectively exercise its right to be heard in the market test following the second commitments.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission had violated the right to good administration, including the obligation to state reasons, by failing to carry out an adequate and detailed assessment of the commitments concerning the slots to be released by the merging parties at the airport of Milan-Linate, particularly regarding:

—the bundling of problematic short-haul routes and residual slots at Milan-Linate, and

—the concentration of slots to the maximum extent within the hands of a single remedy taker.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) together with the principle of proportionality.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the principle of non-discrimination.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging several manifest errors in the defendant’s assessment by:

—unduly requiring that all liberated slots at Milan-Linate be allocated exclusively to the remedy taker for the problematic short-haul routes, which have no link to the situation at Milan-Linate,

—wanting to concentrate the liberated slots at Milan-Linate and avoid a fragmentation, while such fragmentation could have been avoided otherwise, and

—pushing to have the liberated slots at Milan-Linate concentrated in the hands of one remedy taker without considering that this may seriously complicate and jeopardise finding a suitable remedy taker.

—

Summary of Commission Decision of 3 July 2024 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.11071 – DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA / MEF / ITA) (notified under document number C(2024) 4729) (OJ C 2025/1343).

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3084/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—