20.6.2016
SL
Uradni list Evropske unije
C 222/24
Tožba, vložena 18. aprila 2016 – Ryanair in Airport Marketing Services/Komisija
(Zadeva T-165/16)
(2016/C 222/30)
Jezik postopka: angleščina
Stranke
Tožeči stranki: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Irska) in Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (zastopniki: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida in I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, odvetniki, in B. Byrne, Solicitor)
Tožena stranka: Evropska komisija
Predloga
Tožeči stranki Splošnemu sodišču predlagata, naj:
—
razglasi ničnost členov 1(4) in od 2 do 4 Sklepa Komisije (EU) 2016/287 z dne 15. oktobra 2014 o državni pomoči SA.26500 – 2012/C (ex 2011/NN, ex CP 227/2008), ki jo je Nemčija odobrila družbama Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH in Ryanair Ltd; in
—
Komisiji naloži plačilo stroškov.
Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
Tožeči stranki v utemeljitev tožbe navajata štiri tožbene razloge.
1.
Prvi tožbeni razlog: Sklep krši člen 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, načelo dobrega upravljanja in pravico tožečih strank do obrambe, ker Komisija tožečima strankama ni dovolila vpogleda v preiskovalni spis in ju je postavila v položaj, v katerem sta lahko učinkovito izrazili svoja stališča.
2.
Drugi tožbeni razlog: Kršitev člena 107(1) PDEU, ker Komisija ni uspela dokazati selektivnosti.
3.
Tretji tožbeni razlog: Kršitev člena 107(1) PDEU, ker je Komisija napačno sklepala, da so sporazumi med letališčem in tožečima strankama dajali prednost tožečima strankama. Komisija je nepravilno zavrnila sprejetje primerjalne analize, ki sta jo predlagali tožeči stranki, storila očitno napako pri presoji in ni navedla razlogov v svoji analizi donosnosti profitability analysis, by failing to attribute an appropriate value to the marketing services provided under the marketing services agreements; wrongly dismissing the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase marketing services; erroneously dismissing the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes; basing its conclusions on incomplete, unreliable and inappropriate data for its calculation of profitability; and wrongly disregarding the wider benefits of the airport’s Airport Services Agreement with Ryanair.
4.
Četrti tožbeni razlog: Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and AMS was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of the airport (as calculated by the Commission) instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and AMS. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, it failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through the alleged aid, and it 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 grant of the aid.