THE COMMISSION for Aviation Regulation (Car) must clarify whether it has made a decision about the inclusion of capital expenditure for the development of Terminal 2 (T2) at Dublin airport in assessing charges for airlines using the airport.
But Mr Justice Frank Clarke yesterday rejected claims by Ryanair that the regulator had acted irrationally in how it addressed the issue of charges, or in its inclusion of capital expenditure related to development of T2, in the regulatory asset base related to fixing charges.
He also dismissed claims by Ryanair that the regulator had no power to act as it had, and said the regulator has the jurisdiction to make a decision now that would affect expenditure in a future period.
However, because it was not clear from the July 30th, 2007, decision whether there was actually a formal decision on admitting capital expenditure relating to Terminal 2 to the regulatory asset base used to fix charges or whether the regulator was setting out "mere guidance" for airport users, the judge said he was returning the matter to the regulator for clarification.
The judge said the regulator had important statutory powers. Moreover, it was of ultimate importance that there should be clarity about whether the July 2007 decision involved guidance to airport users only or a formal exercise of those powers.
On that basis, he was returning the matter to the regulator for clarification only.
The regulator, Cathal Guiomard, declined to comment on yesterday's judgment.
Ryanair welcomed the court's ruling on T2. "Ryanair welcomes the High Court's decision to order the regulator to review this unlawful T2 determination, which rewarded the DAA monopoly for its profligate waste and inefficiency," it said.
Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, said his side was anxious there be a speedy clarification of this. Michael Howard SC, with Paul Sreenan SC, for the regulator, said his side recognised the matter was urgent but the regulator would need a reasonable opportunity to consider the judgment and the issues arising.
The judge adjourned the matter to next week for mention relating to issues concerning the making of final orders in the case.
