Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62020TN0657

Case T-657/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

OJ C 433, 14.12.2020, p. 66–67 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
30/10/2020
Date lodged:
30/10/2020
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment

14.12.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/66

Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-657/20)

(2020/C 433/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, E. Vahida, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair (1); and

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and incompletely applied the Temporary Framework and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’) and by finding that Finnair had no significant market power.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalization of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Finland by authorising Finland to reserve aid to Finnair.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1)  European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair, OJ 2020 C 310, p. 6

Top