This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0332
Case T-332/21: Action brought on 11 June 2021 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission
Case T-332/21: Action brought on 11 June 2021 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission
Case T-332/21: Action brought on 11 June 2021 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission
OJ C 310, 2.8.2021, p. 37–38
(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:
- 11/06/2021
- Date lodged:
- 11/06/2021
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
2.8.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 310/37 |
Action brought on 11 June 2021 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission
(Case T-332/21)
(2021/C 310/50)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the defendant’s decision of 2 October 2020 on State aid SA.56810 (2020/N) — Romania — COVID-19: Aid to TAROM (1); and |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
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 defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment). |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant 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 defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
