Acest document este un extras de pe site-ul EUR-Lex
Document 62022CN0588
Case C-588/22 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
Case C-588/22 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
Case C-588/22 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
OJ C 424, 7.11.2022, p. 33-34
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.11.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 424/33 |
Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
(Case C-588/22 P)
(2022/C 424/44)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, abogados, E. Vahida, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Finland
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal; |
|
— |
declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that European Commission Decision C(2020) 3970 final of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 (2020/N) — Finland COVID-19: Recapitalisation of Finnair is void; and |
|
— |
order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by the appellant, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
First, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the misapplication of the Temporary Framework and Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
Second, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the non-discrimination and proportionality principles.
Third, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the fundamental freedoms of establishment and provision of services.
Fourth, the General Court and the Commission failed to adequately state reasons.