EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021TN0743

Case T-743/21: Action brought on 22 November 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

OJ C 37, 24.1.2022, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.1.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/50


Action brought on 22 November 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-743/21)

(2022/C 37/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo, 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 16 July 2021 on State aid SA. 57369 (2020/N) — Portugal — Rescue aid to TAP SGPS(1) and

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and manifestly erred in its assessment by claiming that the State aid falls within the material scope of the R&R Guidelines, without correctly determining whether the applicant’s difficulties are too serious to be dealt with by itself, and are intrinsic or the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group to which it belongs.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. It is argued that the defendant’s review of the satisfaction of the compatibility condition that aid should contribute to an objective of common interest and its assessment of the rescue aid’s appropriateness and proportionality and of its negative effects are flawed by errors in law and manifest errors of assessment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of non-discrimination and free provision of services (applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2)) and also the principle of free establishment.

4.

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

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the Commission’s duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.


(1)  OJ 2021 C 345, p. 1.

(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).


Top