10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/28

Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission

(Case T-474/16)

(2016/C 371/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (SOWEAR) (Namur, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare its request to join the present case with Case T-818/14 admissible and well-founded;

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded,

and consequently,

—

annul Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 No SA.14093 concerning the measures implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport and Ryanair;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in classifying the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the runway lighting service as equipment and services of an economic nature.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reasoning used to establish the annual market fee to be paid by BSCA is based on an incorrect calculation method and factors having a substantial impact on the amount of the aid and is moreover vitiated by a clear failure to give reasons.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law, first, by including, in the amount of the fee to be recovered from BSCA the aid granted in respect of the safety task (namely, the fire and maintenance subsidy) and, secondly, by not taking into consideration the fire and maintenance subsidy in 2014 and 2015.