This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024TN0649
Case T-649/24: Action brought on 13 December 2024 – Ryanair v Commission
Case T-649/24: Action brought on 13 December 2024 – Ryanair v Commission
Case T-649/24: Action brought on 13 December 2024 – Ryanair v Commission
OJ C, C/2025/1231, 3.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1231/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
![]() |
Official Journal |
EN C series |
C/2025/1231 |
3.3.2025 |
Action brought on 13 December 2024 – Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-649/24)
(C/2025/1231)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F. -C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, D. Pérez de Lamo, S. Rating and C. Cozzani, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 28 June 2024 C(2024) 4623 final on the State aid SA. 110687/SA.110688 – (2024/N) Sweden – Denmark, Restructuring of SAS Group (1); and |
— |
order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (‘R&R Guidelines’). |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied the R&R Guidelines, and committed a manifest error of assessment regarding demonstration of the risk of disruption of an important service and the systemic role of SAS. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching, and that it is apt to restore SAS’ long-term viability within a reasonable period of time and without relying on further State aid. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish the incentive effect of the aid. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish the proportionality of the aid. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the aid. |
8. |
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure. |
9. |
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
(1) Official Journal C/2024/5574 and C/2024/5576 of 19 September 2024
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1231/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)