By K. Damaskou
The ECJ seemed to have to deal with problems such as the punctuality of its members again. The absence of certain judgment and the Commission’s expert was also noted. As the trial proceeds, we can see that this specific case proves to be surprisingly complicated and causes a rift between the judges.
The first applicant of the Commission, Mrs Rizou stated that their main legal basis is article 18 paragraph 1 of the TFEU. The judges were interested to know whether the discriminatory police of the Spanish government was based solely on nationality. The Commission claimed that “The laws that were applied by the Spanish government deliberately and purposely harmed Albino Airline”. The judges, however, were not quite pleased with that answer.
The kingdom of Spain insisted on its first and main argument that all these actions were taken in order to boost the Spanish economy and not to harm any specific airline company.
Advocate General, Mr Karanikas asked then why did they choose to support a national company instead of attracting new foreign ones in the Spanish Market. The defendance seemed rather unprepared for this question and stated that the EU’s role was not to “invade” in a country’s political matters and that every measure Spain took was in order to improve its economy and stay in the EU. This statement caused the court’s uproar and amongst all the questions raised from the judges, two stood out.
The Judge of Greece asked the defendant: “Should a country do anything in order to overcome its financial crisis, even breaking the EU law?”
Was that a rupture between the judges?
Followling that, the Advocate General asked whether the end blesses the means.
Defendant Mrs Zoi, admitted that, in the past, Spain didn’t fully comply with the EU laws, but is now faithful to its european commitments. She also highlighted that tax raises were not only forced on Albino Airline but to all other Spanish airlines, except Air Andaluz.
Mr Karanikas, asked the Commission: “Should this case be an exception since it serves social justice?”. Mrs Rizou answered to this that the way to overcome social injustice, was not with another injustice.
After this long session the judges seemed even more confused about their final decision, and a rift between them is now more obvious…
