EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/13

(Case T-111/15)

(2015/C 178/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul Articles 1(2), 2(4), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2014 concerning the state aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Angoulême, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants access to the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the Airport Service Agreement and the Marketing Services Agreement to the French state.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission failed to properly apply the ‘market economy investor’ test. The applicant puts forward that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission used manifestly insufficient, unverified and unreliable data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair, failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, and dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFUE in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of Angoulême airport instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, the Commission failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through Angoulême airport’s (supposedly) below-cost payment flows. Finally, the Commission failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the payment of the aid.