EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020TN0259

Case T-259/20: Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020, p. 59–60 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.6.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/59


Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-259/20)

(2020/C 215/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, 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 31 March 2020 on State aid SA.56765; (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 European Commission’s decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality and free movement of services that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The decision of the European Commission ignores the role of such pan-European airlines in the market structure of EU Member States by allowing France to reserve aid only to those EU airlines to which France has issued EU operating licenses. Article 107(2)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European 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 European Commission violated its duty to state reasons in its decision.


(1)  European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 March 2020 on State aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France COVID-19 — Moratoire sur le paiement de taxes aéronautiques en faveur des entreprises de transport public aérien (not yet published at the OJ).


Top