Aviation: AG Szpunar delivers opinion on support to Wizz Air at Timisoara airport
Today, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his opinion in the joined Cases C‑244/23 P to C‑246/23 P Commission v Carpatair e.a..
The subject of the dispute is two agreements between Timisoara Airport and the Hungarian airline Wizz Air from 2008 and 2010. After Wizz Air started operating from Timisoara airport in October 2008 on the basis of these agreements, Carpatair, a Romanian regional airline, lodged a complaint to the Commission in September 2010, alleging illegal state aid in favour of Wizz Air.
After a formal investigation, in February 2020 the Commission adopted a decision concluding that the discounts granted to Wizz Air under the agreements on certain airport charges were not selective and did not provide Wizz Air with an economic advantage that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions and therefore did not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Carpatair lodged an action for annulment of this decision which the General Court granted in a judgment rendered on 8 February 2023 (T‑522/20 Carpatair v Commission).
The Commission lodged an appeal, seeking to have the judgment set aside to the extent that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of economic advantage in Article 107(1) TFEU.
One of the questions raised in this case is whether it is possible for the Commission, when applying the market economy operator principle, to rely on economic analyses carried out after the adoption of the measure at issue and demonstrating its profitability, but based exclusively on information which was available at the time when that measure was adopted, in so far as no similar analysis was carried out before the adoption of that measure.
In the opinion of the AG, the GC erred in annulling the Commission decision. He therefore proposed to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023, Carpatair v Commission (T‑522/20) in so far as the GC erred in law.
For further information, see the AG’s opinion.