(AGENPARL) – mer 08 febbraio 2023 8 FEBBRAIO 2023
SANREMO, IL VICEPRESIDENTE E ASSESSORE ALL’AGRICOLTURA PIANA: “NO AI GESTI CHE SVILISCONO I FIORI E IL LAVORO DI TUTTA FILIERA”
GENOVA. “Fuoriprogramma, scatti umorali o show per catturare l’attenzione non possono ledere la dignità del lavoro dell’uomo e quella sacralità che connota da sempre i fiori di Sanremo: solo chi è coinvolto in agricoltura sa quanta manodopera e quanti sacrifici stanno dietro ad un palco immerso di fiori, in una città che del fiore ha fatto il suo emblema, la sua storia e la sua tradizione”. Così il vicepresidente della Regione Liguria e assessore con delega all’Agricoltura Alessandro Piana, in merito al gesto compiuto ieri sera da un cantante sul palco dell’Ariston durante la serata inaugurale del Festival di Sanremo. “Un gesto che arriva in un periodo in cui le speculazioni sui prezzi e le difficoltà congiunturali appesantiscono i floricoltori, con costi di produzione più che raddoppiati, ma in cui i nostri imprenditori hanno dimostrato tenacia e forza per portare avanti il made in Liguria, senza trascurare il lavoro di chi allestisce e prepara le scenografie – continua il vicepresidente – Mi unisco quindi alla contestazione immediata sorta ieri sera da parte del pubblico del teatro: dato che sostengo i giovani e amo la musica, tanto più non posso che sottolineare come a prendere a calci i fiori sul palco di Sanremo sia un atto da condannare con forza. Si rifletta su questo affronto ad una delle più importanti eccellenze della Liguria: lo spettacolo sia pure ribelle, di protesta, ma costruttivo, mai esclusivamente negativo”.
NNNN [-]

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 24
/23

Luxembourg,
8

February

2023

Judgment of the General Cour
t in Case
T
–
522
/20 |
Carpatair

v

Commission

The General Court annuls the decision of the European Commission
approving Romanian aid to Timișoara International Airport in fav
our of
Wizz Air

The Commission committed several errors of law when examining

Timișoara International Airport, located in the west of Romania, is operated by
Societatea Națională

‘Aeroportul
Internaţional Timişoara

–

Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV), a joint stock company in which the Romanian State holds 80% of
the shares.

In preparation for the increase in traffic that was expected to result from Romania’s accession to the European
Union

financing from the Romanian State for the construction of a terminal for non
–
Schengen flights and for security
equipment.

Furthermore, in 2008, as pa
rt of a strategy intended to attract low
–
cost airlines and
to
increase the overall
profitability of the airport, AITTV signed agreements with Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (‘Wizz Air’), a
Hungarian low
–
eir cooperation as well as the terms and conditions for
the use of the airport infrastructure and services by Wizz Air (‘the 2008 agreements’). Two of those agreements were
‘the 2010 amendment
agreements’). Under the Aeronautical Information Publications (‘AIPs’) of 2007, 2008 and 2010, Wizz Air also received
discounts and rebates on airport charges.

In 2010, the Romanian regional airline Carpatair SA submitted a complaint to

the European Commission challenging
aid granted by the Romanian authorities to Timișoara International Airport in favour of Wizz Air.

By decision of
24

February

2020 (‘the contested decision’), the Commission considered, first, that the public
financing p
rovided in the period

2009 to AITTV for the non
–
Schengen terminal development, the
improvement of the taxiway and the extension of the apron and the lighting equipment, constitutes State aid which
hin the mean
ing of
Article

107
(3)(c) TFEU.

1

Secondly, the Commission
found that the public financing of the access road and the development of the parking area in 2007 and for the
security equipment in 2008, the airport charges in the 2007 AIP, 2008 AIP a
nd 2010 AIP, and the 2008 agreements
with Wizz Air, including the 2010 amendment agreements, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article

107
(1) TFEU.

Carpatair SA brought an action for the annulment of that decision in so far as the Commissio
n found that neither

1

According to that provision, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas ma
y be considered to be
compatible with the internal market where such aid does

not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

the discounts and rebates on the airport charges in the 2010 AIP nor the 2008 agreements, as amended in 2010
(‘the measures at issue’), constitute State aid. In upholding that action, the General Court finds that the Commission
committ
ed several errors of law in its examination of whether those measures were selective and of whether they
conferred an advantage.

Findings of the Court

As a preliminary point, the Court rejects the Commission’s argument that the action brought by Carpatair
SA is
inadmissible on the ground that the latter has neither standing to bring an action for annulment of the contested
decision nor a vested and present interest in the annulment of that decision.

As regards Carpatair SA’s standing to bring proceedings, t
he Court recalls that, under the fourth paragraph of
Article

263

TFEU, any natural or legal person may bring an action against an act which is not addressed to that
person if that act is of direct and individual concern to th
e
m or if the action is directed

against regulatory acts which
are of direct concern to th
em

and do not entail implementing measures. In the light of that dichotomy, the Court
states that the part of the contested decision relating to the airport charges constitutes a regulatory act, wit
h the
result that the action brought by Carpatair SA against that part is admissible, provided that Carpatair SA is directly
affected by that part. By contrast, since the 2008 agreements and the 2010 amendment agreements must be
classified as individual me
asures, the action brought by Carpatair SA against the part of the contested decision
addressing those agreements is admissible only if Carpatair SA demonstrates that those agreements concern it not
only directly, but also individually.

her Carpatair SA is individually concerned by the part of the contested decision addressing the
2008 agreements and the 2010 amendment agreements, the Court observes that such individual concern
admittedly cannot be inferred from the mere participation of
that undertaking in the administrative procedure prior
to the adoption of the contested decision. However, since those agreements were liable to have a substantial effect

with Wizz Air, Carpatair SA has
established to the requisite legal standard that it is individually concerned. Moreover, since the assessment of

at
issue were granted and were liable to have an effect, the arguments that Carpatair SA changed its business model
and terminated its activities at Timişoara International Airport as of 2013 cannot call that conclusion into question.

The Court also consi
ders that Carpatair SA is directly affected by the contested decision
since
, first, that decision
issue and, secondly, the decision leaves in
tact the effects of the measures at issue in a purely automatic manner
resulting from the EU rules alone and without the application of other intermediate rules.

Having upheld the admissibility of the action brought by Carpatair SA, the Court finds, as reg
ards the substance, that
the contested decision is vitiated by several errors of law which affect the conclusion that neither the discounts and
rebates on the airport charges in the 2010 AIP nor the agreements concluded with Wizz Air in 2008,
as amended in

2010, constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article

107
(1) TFEU, since, according to the Commission, the former
are not selective in nature and the latter do not confer an economic advantage on Wizz Air.

As regards, in the first place, the selective
nature of the discounts and rebates on the airport charges in the 2010
AIP, the Court recalls that, although only measures which confer an advantage selectively fall within the concept of
‘State aid’, it is apparent from the case
–
law that interventions whi
ch, prima facie, apply to undertakings in general
may, in relation to their effects, be to a certain extent selective and, accordingly, be regarded as measures designed
to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. Such de facto select
ivity can be established in
cases where, although the formal criteria for the application of the measure are formulated in general and objective
terms, the structure of the measure is such that its effects significantly favour a particular group of underta
kings.

airlines using or liable to

use Timişoara International Airport. The third type of reduction provided, in that context,

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

for discounts of 72% to 85% for aircraft having a maximum take
–
off weight above 70 tonnes with more than
10

000

embarked passengers per month.

Although the three t
on the basis of a joint assessment, that they were not selective. In that context, the Commission also did not take a
position on the question whether airlines other

than Wizz Air had in their fleet aircraft of the relevant sizes and
sufficient frequencies which actually enabled them to benefit from the third type of reduction mentioned above. In
the light of those observations, the Court concludes that, by failing to

examine whether the third type of reduction,
taken in isolation, favoured Wizz Air owing to the conditions governing its applica
tion, as Carpatair SA maintains
, the
Commission erred in law.

As regards, in the second place, the question whether an economic

advantage was c
onferred on Wizz Air by the
2010 amendment

agreements
,
the Court points out that that assessment is made in principle by applying the
ic body
is the information which was available, and the developments which were foreseeable, at the time when the
decision to conduct the operat
ion in question was taken. However, the conclusion reached by the Commission in
would have entered
into the 2010 amendment agreements

with Wizz Air, was based entirel
y on evidence established ex post and, in
particular, on a report drawn up in 2015.

In that regard, the Court states that the view cannot be taken, merely because that 2015 report is based on the
information which was available and the developments which w
ere foreseeable at the time when the 2008
agreements were adopted, that it amounts to an ex ante analysis capable of demonstrating compliance with the
ructed
ex post,
as
provided by Romania and Wizz Air in the administrative procedure, are capable of shedding light on the
information existing at the time of the conclusion of the 2008 agreements and must be taken into account by the
Commission, the fact r
emains that those analyses did not supplement evidence generated before the conclusion of
those agreements,

that was the only evidence on which the Commission based its assessment of the 2008
agreements.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Commission

failed to state grounds in law for its conclusion that the 2008
agreements and the 2010 amendment agreements had not conferred an economic advantage on Wizz Air which it
ot constitute State aid.

In the light of those considerations, the Cour
t upholds the action and annuls the contested decision in so far as it
concludes that the airport charges in the 2010 AIP and the 2008 agreements, including the 2010 amendment
agreements, do not constitute State aid.

NOTE:
An action for annulment seeks the

annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain
conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or t
he General Court. If the action is well
founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the
act.

NOTE:
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice again
st the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

St
ay Connected
!

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.

The
full tex
t

of the judgment is published on the CURIA
website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
✆

(+352) 4
303

335
5

Pictures of the delivery of t
he judgment are available from ‘
Europe by Satellite
‘

✆

(+32)
2

296
4106