ECLI:EU:C:2026:194•Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 12 March 2026.#Global 8 Airlines v European Commission.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the military aggression against Ukraine – Regulation (EU) 2022/334 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Articles 3d and 3e – Prohibition for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union – Rejection of a flight plan – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Act amenable to review.#Case C-482/24 P.
Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 12 March 2026.#Global 8 Airlines v European Commission.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the military aggression against Ukraine – Regulation (EU) 2022/334 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Articles 3d and 3e – Prohibition for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union – Rejection of a flight plan – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Act amenable to review.#Case C-482/24 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2026:194Eu CjeuMar 12, 2026
Full text
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA
delivered on 12 March 2026 (1)
Case C‑482/24 P
Global 8 Airlines
v
European Commission
( Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Article 3d and 3e – Prohibition for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the European Union – Rejection of flight plan – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Actionable measure )
1. This appeal concerns the order of the General Court of 29 April 2024, Global 8 Airlines v Commission (2) (‘the order under appeal’).
2. In the order under appeal, the General Court ruled inadmissible the action for annulment brought by Global 8 Airlines LLC against a decision of the European Commission, of which that company was informed on 20 March 2023, relating to the inclusion of two aircraft owned by it on a list of aircraft subject to a prohibition to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the European Union, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 833/2014. (3)
3. The General Court, agreeing with the Commission, held that the action for annulment was inadmissible on the grounds, essentially, that: (a) the flight ban under Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 (4) was not attributable to the Commission; and (b) the contested decision, in so far as it related to the list of aircraft subject to a flight ban, (5) was not amenable to an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.
I. Background to the dispute
4. The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 17 of the order under appeal and may be summarised as follows:
– Global 8 Airlines, a limited liability company incorporated under Kyrgyz law, is a commercial airline company, entered in the companies register of the Kyrgyz Republic, from which it is apparent that it is owned by one natural person and managed by another natural person, both Latvian nationals.
– The management board of Global 8 Airlines approved, on 9 September 2022 and 20 February 2023, the purchase of two aircraft from a Russian company whose shareholders are Russian nationals.
– The two aircraft were registered in Kyrgyzstan under the name of Global 8 Airlines on 12 September 2022 and 9 March 2023, respectively. One of the aircraft made a number of flights from Russia to EU countries.
– On 24 February 2023, Global 8 Airlines submitted a flight plan for one of the aircraft (6) to the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (‘Eurocontrol’) for a route from Augsburg (Germany) to Budapest (Hungary). The flight plan was rejected on the same day by means of an automated message.
– On 15 March 2023, Global 8 Airlines sent an email to Eurocontrol seeking clarification of the automated message of 24 February 2023.
– On 20 March 2023, Eurocontrol informed Global 8 Airlines that the aircraft registered under EX-88012 appeared on a list of aircraft subject to the prohibition laid down in Regulation No 833/2014 and invited it to contact a functional mailbox of the Commission, managed by the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (‘DG MOVE’), should it wish to request the delisting of the aircraft in question.
– On 21 March 2023, Global 8 Airlines sent an email to the Commission’s mailbox in order to seek a clarification of its position and, in essence, a review of its situation as regards, inter alia, the lifting of the flight ban, its removal from the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014, as well as the communication to Eurocontrol of updated information concerning itself. It also asked to be informed, where appropriate, of the national authority that was competent to process its request for review.
– On 28 March 2023, the person in charge of the mailbox (a member of staff of DG MOVE) informed Global 8 Airlines that the two aircraft were on the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014 and that that flight ban had to be maintained.
– On 25 April 2023, after having received additional information from Global 8 Airlines concerning its situation, the member of staff of DG MOVE informed it that there were no grounds justifying the lifting of the flight ban.
II. The procedure before the General Court and the order under appeal
5. On 22 May 2023, Global 8 Airlines brought an action before the General Court under Article 263 TFEU, seeking ‘the annulment of the decision adopted by the [Commission], of which it was informed on 20 March 2023, relating to the inclusion of two [aircraft] owned by it on [the] list [referred to in Regulation No 833/2014] …’ (7)
6. The Commission raised a plea of inadmissibility on the following grounds:
– The contested decision did not exist and, in any event, it could not be precisely identified.
– The contested decision could not be the subject of an action for annulment, since it should be regarded, where appropriate, as a provisional measure which did not produce binding legal effects vis-à-vis Global 8 Airlines.
– The act adversely affecting Global 8 Airlines was attributable to the Member States.
– The action for annulment was directed against the wrong act and to a court which had no jurisdiction to hear it.
– The action was time-barred.
– The action was devoid of purpose, in view of the general operating ban in the European Union, on safety grounds, imposed on air carriers entered in the register of the Kyrgyz Republic, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1543/2006. (8)
7. By the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment as inadmissible.
8. The General Court took the view that the flight ban was not attributable to the Commission, since the implementation and enforcement of EU restrictive measures are the responsibility of the Member States (also, in particular, the power to reject flight plans, which is exercised by Eurocontrol on behalf of the Member States). The Commission’s role is merely to assist, as a gatherer of the information necessary to enable Member States to carry out their task, that being the purpose served by the preparation of the list at issue.
9. In short, the General Court held that the binding legal effects on the legal position of Global 8 Airlines follow from the flight ban laid down in Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 and not, under any circumstances, from the listing of the aircraft in question.
III. The appeal and the procedure before the Court of Justice
10. The appeal lodged by Global 8 Airlines was received at the Registry of the General Court on 9 July 2024.
11. Global 8 Airlines seeks the annulment of the order under appeal in its entirety and an order that the Commission must bear the costs.
12. The Commission seeks the dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible and, as the case may be, as unfounded in its entirety, in addition to an order that Global 8 Airlines must bear the costs.
13. By decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2024, the Federal Republic of Germany was given leave to participate in the proceedings in support of the Commission.
14. The German Government claims that the appeal should be dismissed as inadmissible and, in the alternative, as unfounded, and that Global 8 Airlines should be ordered to bear the costs.
15. At the hearing held on 17 December 2025, oral argument was presented by Global 8 Airlines, the German Government and the Commission.
IV. Assessment
A. The admissibility of the appeal
16. The Commission, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, claims that the appeal is inadmissible.
1. Arguments
17. The Commission argues that Global 8 Airlines does not put forward clearly the errors in law allegedly committed by the General Court and effectively seeks a re-examination of the application which was ruled inadmissible by that court.
18. In the Commission’s submission:
– The appeal does not contain any legal arguments showing that DG MOVE adopted a legally binding act which would justify a review as to the substance by the General Court. On the contrary, the appeal merely claims that the acceptance of the arguments put forward by the Commission in its defence constituted an error of law.
– The appeal does not clarify whether it disputes the finding, by the General Court, that the legal effects of the flight ban flow directly from Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014, or whether it disputes that flight plans are processed by Eurocontrol on behalf of the Member States.
– Global 8 Airlines appears to claim that the error committed by the General Court consists of the finding that the contested decision does not create binding legal effects on its position. However, its appeal does not explain why that finding is incorrect, merely asserting that DG MOVE takes the final decision concerning the situation of aircraft. The appeal repeats the arguments put forward by Global 8 Airlines in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission at first instance.
– Global 8 Airlines appears to insinuate that the General Court erroneously examined the legality of the rejection of the flight plan, instead of the list at issue, but does not refer specifically to any ground of the order under appeal which would demonstrate that this is actually the case.
19. In its reply, Global 8 Airlines argues that:
– The exact grounds of appeal are, without doubt, included implicitly in the appeal.
– The substantive ground of appeal can be deduced with reasonable clarity from the wording and context of the appeal. The ground alleges that the claim put forward by Global 8 Airlines before the General Court did not, as the General Court held, challenge the mere rejection of a flight plan but rather disputed the inclusion of the aircraft, by the Commission, on the list at issue.
– The procedural ground of appeal essentially alleges that the General Court acted with bias when it examined the evidence adduced in the proceedings.
2. Analysis
20. Even if it is accepted that the appeal lodged by Global 8 Airlines does not structure with the proper precision and clarity the arguments it seeks to put forward, I believe that it is admissible.
21. In response to the Commission’s contention, it is readily apparent from reading the appeal that Global 8 Airlines is alleging that the General Court erred in law by misconstruing the subject matter of its claim. That subject matter was not the rejection of the flight plan (notified by Eurocontrol), but rather the inclusion of two aircraft owned by it on the list at issue.
22. Moreover, Global 8 Airlines has referred with sufficient precision to the paragraphs of the order under appeal setting out the arguments which led the General Court to identify incorrectly the act against which the action for annulment was brought.
23. In any event, ‘according to settled case-law, any fact which relates to the admissibility of the action for annulment brought before the General Court is likely to constitute a question of public policy which the Court of Justice, hearing an appeal, is required to raise of its own motion’. (9)
24. In this case, the order under appeal created uncertainty regarding the identification of the act adversely affecting Global 8 Airlines and, in particular, regarding the rules for the implementation of Regulation No 833/2014 and the respective responsibilities of the Commission, the Member States and Eurocontrol.
25. I believe, therefore, that, if it were necessary, in the final analysis and in the interests of safeguarding EU law against acts or measures which are not amenable to judicial review, the Court of Justice would be able to give a ruling of its own motion on the admissibility of the action for annulment.
B. The substance
1. Arguments of the parties
26. Global 8 Airlines alleges that the General Court committed three errors:
– First, when it identified the contested act, which was not the rejection of the flight plan but rather the inclusion of two aircraft owned by the appellant on the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014.
– Secondly, when it incorrectly assessed the structure of Regulation No 833/2014. The General Court confused the concept of aircraft, for the purposes of Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 (a concept requiring an assessment), and the concept of the provision of air traffic services by Eurocontrol (Article 3e of that regulation). Eurocontrol’s role as network manager is merely ancillary in the assessment of the legal nature of ownership or control of the aircraft to which Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 refers.
– Thirdly, when it made an erroneous assessment of EU law as applied in practice by all the actors involved. It is DG MOVE which adopts the final decision on the exact status of an aircraft, while the Member States and Eurocontrol merely implement that final decision within the framework of their competences.
27. The Commission argues that the inclusion of aircraft on the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014 does not have to undergo a judicial review, since the flight ban is directly applicable by virtue of Article 3d of that regulation. The Member States are responsible for the adoption of the necessary enforcement measures, which are applied by Eurocontrol on their behalf.
28. Accordingly, in the Commission’s submission, the General Court correctly held that the inclusion of the aircraft belonging to Global 8 Airlines on the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014 is not a decision which creates binding legal effects. Such effects flow only from the rejection of the flight plans by Eurocontrol.
29. The Commission asserts that, even if it were accepted that the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014 must be subject to judicial review and it were found that DG MOVE adopts decisions on the status of aircraft, the annulment of that decision would not produce legal effects regarding the position of Global 8 Airlines. That annulment would not result in the automatic invalidity of the Member States’ enforcement decisions and of the rejection of the flight plan issued by Eurocontrol.
30. The German Government agrees, essentially, with the view put forward by the Commission. Unlike the Commission, however, the German Government submits that Global 8 Airlines should have challenged the flight ban and that the defendant should have been Eurocontrol, the organisation to which Article 3e of Regulation No 833/2014 granted the power to reject any flight plans which infringe the prohibition laid down in Article 3d of that regulation.
31. That means, in the German Government’s submission, that Global 8 Airlines should have brought proceedings against Eurocontrol before the courts of the place of its registered office (Belgium), thereby fulfilling the guarantee of judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2. Analysis
32. In the light of the background to the dispute, it seems clear to me that the original claim of Global 8 Airlines was defined in the email sent to the Commission on 21 March 2023, in which it sought, inter alia, the removal of the aircraft from the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014.
33. The basis for that email was, for its part, another email (of 20 March 2023) in which Eurocontrol set out the reasons for its rejection of the flight plan for one of those two aircraft.
34. The email sent by Eurocontrol to Global 8 Airlines reads: ‘After analysis the of the “banned” flights list, I can confirm that the registration shown below is subject to the restrictions as defined in the sanctions list provided [to the network manager] by the [Commission]. Please contact MOVE-AVIATION-SANCTIONS@ec.europa.eu if you believe that this particular airframe should be removed from this list’. (10)
35. At the Court’s request, the Commission produced a non-confidential excerpt from the list at issue, containing the following information regarding the inclusion of the aircraft belonging to Global 8 Airlines: ‘22/02/2023: Decision of the EC to include the aircraft on the confirmed list, based on the evidence gathered by the German authorities during the inspection and other resources; Global 8 Airlines … provides services to passengers, flights organised from Russia via Minsk to the EU, within Russia, within the EU. That operation also infringes the provisions of the “security list” …’ (11)
36. In my view, it is apparent from the foregoing that:
– A list of aircraft existed on which the aircraft belonging to Global 8 Airlines were included by ‘decision of the EC’;
– Global 8 Airlines was seeking the removal of its aircraft from that list;
– Following the refusal of its request, Global 8 Airlines challenged before the General Court ‘the decision adopted by the [Commission] … relating to the inclusion of two [aircraft] … on [the] list’. (12)
37. The order under appeal begins its reasoning in line with the statements I have just set out. In that connection,
– the General Court acknowledges that it ‘has jurisdiction to review, as the applicant requests, the legality of the contested decision, which is an act adopted by the Commission other than a recommendation or an opinion’; (13)
– the General Court points out that ‘the application for annulment relates to an alleged Commission decision to which Eurocontrol’s email of 20 March 2023 refers’. (14) That decision is the decision to include the aircraft owned by Global 8 Airlines on the list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014;
– The General Court goes on to state that ‘it is therefore necessary to examine whether that act … may be classified as a decision adversely affecting the applicant.’
38. However, immediately afterwards, there is a break in the line of reasoning in the order under appeal which leads to the error complained of by Global 8 Airlines regarding the identification of the act the annulment of which was sought in the proceedings.
39. The General Court, in summarising the line of argument put forward by Global 8 Airlines, states that the latter ‘considers, in essence, that, as regards the two aircraft, the Commission could be regarded as the author of the decision imposing the flight ban referred to in Article 3d [of Regulation No 833/2014] by including those two aircraft on the list, with the Member States and Eurocontrol merely applying that ban.’ (15)
40. The General Court took the view that ‘that analysis cannot be followed, since the legal context of the processing of flight plans and the division of the respective roles of the Member States, Eurocontrol and the Commission in that process preclude the contested decision from being regarded as a measure intended to have binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant’. (16)
41. On that basis, the General Court focused on the ‘legal context of the processing of flight plans’ and the division of the respective roles of the Member States, Eurocontrol and the Commission, which led it to interpret Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 in the following terms:
– The provisions contained in Article 3d are of general application and must be implemented by the competent national authorities. (17)
– The competent national authorities must comply with the general provisions of Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014, adopting, where appropriate, individual measures to enforce them; (18) inter alia, in the context of the processing of flight plans. (19)
42. The General Court concluded from those considerations that ‘a flight ban under Article 3d is not an act attributable to the Commission.’ (20)
43. In my view, it is that conclusion which led to the change of the subject matter of the form of order sought by Global 8 Airlines before the General Court, which was not the annulment of the flight ban for one of its aircraft but rather the removal of that aircraft, and of another belonging to the same company, from the list at issue.
44. On examining the nature of the list at issue, the General Court reached the following conclusions:
– The list ‘is merely a compilation of information from various sources’, (21) resulting from a coordination mechanism established by DG MOVE and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), with the authorities of the Member States, with the aim of facilitating the application of Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014. (22)
– The objective of the establishment of that list based on the information flow provided by those who establish it is so that the Member States take coordinated decisions on the processing of individual flight plans submitted by the aircraft operators concerned. (23)
– The Commission and the authorities of the Member States participate in the preparation of the list. (24)
45. Having made those points, the General Court concludes with an assertion which I find somewhat ambiguous, namely that ‘the preparation of the list … is not a decision allegedly taken by or on behalf of the Commission’. (25)
46. If I have understood that assertion correctly, the General Court means that the decision to draw up the list is not taken by the Commission. However, in paragraph 45 of the order under appeal, the General Court accepts that the preparation of the list is the result of a mechanism for coordinating the flow of certain information, established, inter alia, by other actors and by the Commission.
47. Accordingly, it would be correct to state that ‘the preparation of the list is part of a decision adopted, inter alia, by the Commission’.
48. In any event, what really matters is not only who decided that the list should exist but rather who decided that the aircraft owned by Global 8 Airlines should be included on that list. That alone was the subject matter of the action for annulment lodged by that company.
49. The General Court states that, under Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014, the Commission was not empowered to impose a flight ban. That power is vested in the Member States and is exercised on their behalf by Eurocontrol. The Commission merely gathers information and disseminates the list on the basis of the decisions of the national authorities. (26)
50. Admittedly, as the General Court observes, the flight ban is established by Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 and not by the Commission. The Member States, for their part, simply adopt individual measures aimed at ensuring the implementation of that provision. (27)
51. All those considerations can be left out of the debate for the purposes of those proceedings. That is because the important point is that Global 8 Airlines was placed on a list, which, as the General Court accepts, included ‘aircraft subject to the flight ban laid down in Article 3d, so that Member States take coordinated decisions on the processing of individual flight plans submitted by the aircraft operators concerned’. (28)
52. Having clarified, therefore, that it is the Member States which decide, in each case, which aircraft are subject to the flight ban under Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014, those Member States do so on the basis of the list at issue, which the Commission is involved in preparing.
53. Therefore, listing enables the competent national authorities to decide to prohibit the flight plan of a listed aircraft.
54. By its claim that it should be removed from the list at issue, Global 8 Airlines is not challenging a flight ban in particular; nor is it contesting Regulation No 833/2014, which, it asserts in its appeal, contains ‘no direct contradiction … at all [against EU law]’. (29) The subject matter of the action for annulment before the General Court was, I repeat, the inclusion of the aircraft on a list which led to a (subsequent) decision of the competent authorities, prohibiting the approval of the flight plan for its aircraft.
55. Whatever the nature and legal significance of the list at issue, the fact is that the aircraft on it may be ‘subject to the flight ban laid down in Article 3d [of Regulation No 833/2014]’. (30)
56. In its reply to the Court’s request to provide the contested decision or, as the case may be, the list at issue, the Commission insists that ‘that “List” is not a decision but an Excel file produced on the basis of coordinated action between [EASA], [the] Commission’s services ([DG MOVE]) and Member States authorities.’ (31)
57. The list is obviously not a decision but the listing of an aircraft is: an aircraft can be listed only if someone has made a decision to that effect.
58. The Commission acknowledges that the list at issue is compiled by EASA and DG MOVE, (32) and that Member States may regularly update the information contained in the list and request amendments, it being understood that they tacitly approve the list if they fail to react. (33)
59. The Commission also maintains that the entry in the list at issue which reads ‘22/02/2023: EC decision to list aircraft in Confirmed list, based on evidence gathered by German Authorities during Inspection and other resources’ does not prove the existence of a legally binding act of the Commission or refer to a formal act approving the listing.
60. The Commission submits that the term ‘EC decision’ simply means that, in the view of the officials of the Commission and of EASA responsible for coordinating the list, ‘all collected evidence (including the one from the German authorities) indicated … that there are sufficient reasons to list the aircraft’. (34)
61. However, irrespective of the fact that inclusion on the list is subject to review by the Member States, which may request that the list be corrected, it is DG MOVE and EASA which ‘compile the list’ and, therefore, decide to list those aircraft in respect of which ‘sufficient reasons’ exist to decide that they must be listed.
62. The preparation of the list is, therefore, the result of a decision adopted by the Commission based on an assessment of information supplied by a number of sources.
63. The assessment of whether the available information is such that it confirms the existence of reasons justifying the listing of aircraft is attributable only to those who ‘compile the list’, that is, in this case, the Commission. That is what is meant by the term ‘EC decision’ on the list at issue.
64. The action for annulment in this case was, as already stated, brought against the inclusion of aircraft owned by Global 8 Airlines on the list at issue. By that action, the company which owns the aircraft sought to dispute the existence of ‘sufficient reasons’ which, in the Commission’s view, justified their listing.
65. I believe, therefore, that the act against which the action for annulment was brought was readily identifiable: the listing of the aircraft was the direct result of a decision adopted by the Commission following an assessment of the available information.
66. The listing of the aircraft – which was, I repeat, decided by the Commission – entails the possibility of a (subsequent) flight ban. (35)
67. Even though that flight ban is decided by Eurocontrol on behalf of the Member States, its basis is none other than the listing of the aircraft, which is attributable to the Commission. (36) It is the Commission which decided to list the aircraft and it is that decision which Global 8 Airlines sought to challenge before the General Court.
68. Global 8 Airlines has argued at all times that the decision to include the aircraft on the list at issue affects its rights and interests: the listing creates the possibility that its aircraft will be refused authorisation to fly. The General Court, on the contrary, denied that that decision produces legal effects.
69. In my view, the General Court was wrong to discount the legal effects of the decision adopted by the Commission.
70. As I have already repeated, the claim for annulment brought by Global 8 Airlines did not concern the specific rejection of the flight plan for one of its aircraft but rather the inclusion of both its aircraft on the list at issue. I find it difficult to accept that that listing (whether right or wrong as regards the substance) (37) lacks any legal effects.
71. Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 establishes a ban on any aircraft operated by Russian air carriers, any Russian-registered aircraft, or any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, landing in, taking off from or overflying the territory of the Union.
72. Naturally, the application of that ban requires the competent national authorities to identify the carriers caught by the ban so that they may adopt the relevant decisions in relation to their aircraft. That is the first step in a sequence of subsequent acts for which the Member States and, where appropriate, Eurocontrol (which approves or rejects flight plans) are responsible.
73. The identification of carriers whose flight plans may be prohibited at a later date is an act which is substantive in its own right and from which legal effects flow directly. The Member States and Eurocontrol rely on that act when they deal with individual flight plans requested by aircraft owners, which they may reject only after consulting the list at issue, to which they must adhere until such time as the Commission amends it.
74. Therefore, after confirming that the aircraft registered under EX-88012 was listed, Eurocontrol invited Global 8 Airlines to contact the Commission ‘should it wish to request the delisting of the aircraft in question’. (38)
75. Therefore, in that context, the list at issue is legally significant, (39) in so far as it determines the subjective scope of Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014. In giving concrete expression, in respect of some air carriers (in this case, Global 8 Airlines), to the ban on their aircraft landing in, taking off from or overflying the territory of the Union, the decision reflected in the list adversely affects those carriers’ interests and automatically affects their legal position.
76. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the appeal be allowed.
C. Final judgment in the matter
77. In accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, if the appeal is well founded, the decision of the General Court is to be quashed. The Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment.
78. In my view, the state of the proceedings is not such that final judgment may be given in the matter by the Court of Justice.
79. When examining the legality of the decision to list the aircraft belonging to Global 8 Airlines, it will first of all be necessary to determine whether that company has legal standing to contest the decision. If, as the case may be, Global 8 Airlines is found to have legal standing, it will be necessary to examine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the decision, (40) which will require an examination of the coordinating mechanism established with EASA and the Member States for managing the information flow on which the list is based, in addition to the Commission’s role in that context. Lastly, there may be a need to determine whether the listing complied, as to the substance, with Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014.
80. Those are all matters on which the Court of Justice may not rule in these proceedings because they require an inter partes examination of legislative and factual elements on which the General Court, in accepting the initial plea of inadmissibility of the action raised by the Commission, did not actually adjudicate. (41)
D. Costs
81. In accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, and since Global 8 Airlines has made an application to that effect, the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs in these proceedings, while the Federal Republic of Germany should bear its own costs.
V. Conclusion
82. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice:
– Allow the appeal;
– Set aside the order of the General Court of 29 April 2024 in Case T‑277/23, Global 8 Airlines v Commission (EU:T:2024:285);
– Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the substance;
– Order the European Commission to pay the costs;
– Order the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
1 Original language: Spanish.
2 Case T‑277/23 (EU:T:2024:285).
3 Council Regulation of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/334 of 28 February 2022 (OJ 2022 L 57, p. 1).
4 Article 3d(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 provides: ‘It shall be prohibited for any aircraft operated by Russian air carriers, including as a marketing carrier in code-sharing or blocked-space arrangements, or for any Russian-registered aircraft, or for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union.’
5 The ‘list at issue’ or ‘list referred to in Regulation No 833/2014’.
6 That was the aircraft with the registration number EX-88012.
7 Paragraph 1 of the order under appeal.
8 Commission Regulation of 12 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council and as amended by Regulation (EC) No 910/2006 (OJ 2006 L 283, p. 27).
9 For example, judgment of 8 February 2024, Pilatus Bank v ECB (C‑750/21 P, EU:C:2024:124, paragraph 32), citing judgments of 23 April 2009, Sahlstedt and Others v Commission (C‑362/06 P, EU:C:2009:243, paragraphs 21 to 23), and of 6 July 2023, Julien v Council (C‑285/22 P, EU:C:2023:551, paragraph 45).
10 Emphasis added.
11 Emphasis added.
12 Paragraph 1 of the order under appeal.
13 Paragraph 34 of the order under appeal.
14 Paragraph 37 of the order under appeal.
15 Paragraph 38 of the order under appeal. Emphasis added.
16 Paragraph 39 of the order under appeal.
17 Paragraph 40 of the order under appeal.
18 Loc. cit.
19 Paragraph 41 of the order under appeal.
20 Paragraph 43 of the order under appeal.
21 Paragraph 46 of the order under appeal.
22 Paragraph 45 of the order under appeal.
23 Loc. cit.
24 Loc. cit.
25 Paragraph 46 of the order under appeal.
26 Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the order under appeal.
27 Paragraph 40 of the order under appeal.
28 Paragraph 45 of the order under appeal; italics added.
29 Paragraph 3.4 of the appeal. It repeated that assertion during its oral argument at the hearing.
30 Paragraph 45 of the order under appeal.
31 Paragraph 2 of the Commission’s reply to the Court’s request; bold in the original.
32 Ibid., paragraph 16.
33 Ibid., paragraph 17.
34 Ibid., paragraph 21.
35 To quote the order under appeal, the objective of the information flow coordinated by means of the mechanism established by the DG, EASA and the authorities of the Member States is ‘to establish … a list of aircraft subject to the flight ban’ (paragraph 45; emphasis added).
36 That listing may be corrected or amended – or possibly also cancelled – by the Commission alone. It is apparent from the Commission’s reply to the Court’s request (paragraph 21) that the authorities of the Member States may ‘ask for the correction of the listing should it contain errors or should they have doubts about EC officers’ conclusions’ (emphasis added). That statement confirms that inclusion on the list is the result of an assessment justifying the decision to order it.
37 That is a matter to be determined by the General Court when it gives final judgment on the dispute, as I shall propose below. In its action for annulment, Global 8 Airlines argued, essentially, that the conditions laid down in Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014 were not met, since: (a) it was a company governed by private law, with its registered office in the Kyrgyz Republic, which was owned and managed by citizens of the European Union who did not hold another nationality; and (b) the aircraft were not under the control of Russian individuals or entities.
38 Paragraph 14 of the order under appeal.
39 Paragraph 38 of the order under appeal states that, with regard to Global 8 Airlines, by preparing that list, the Commission, in essence, established a binding mechanism, the purpose of which was to put in place a unified EU-wide assessment of the ownership and control of aircraft concerned, with the aim of ensuring the effective implementation of the flight ban laid down in Article 3d of Regulation No 833/2014. The Commission, therefore, could be regarded as the author of a decision which the Member States and Eurocontrol merely applied.
40 The fact that the Commission may, de facto, have adopted the contested decision does not necessarily mean that it had the power to do so.
41 Without ruling out that that debate may be impossible if the plea that the action for annulment was lodged out of time, which the Commission raised before the General Court, is successful.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.