- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-440/22 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-718/20, Wizz Air v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0440
62022CN0440
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 318/32
—
(Case C-440/22 P)
(2022/C 318/44)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal; and
—annul the Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (1); and order the Commission to pay the costs; or
—refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.
First, the General Court erred in law by finding that the condition of existence of an important service which is hard to replicate within the meaning of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (the ‘Guidelines’) is satisfied.
Second, the General Court misapplied the Guidelines regarding the evidence of the difficulty for a competitor to step in.
Third, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the free capacity on the market and the capacity of low fares airlines to operate on domestic routes.
Fourth, the General Court made an error in law by finding that capital increases cannot relate to a restructuring plan.
Fifth, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the duration of TAROM’s restructuring period.
Sixth, the General Court erred in law by concluding that there was no need for the Commission to verify if existing aid has become new aid.
Seventh, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure.
(1) OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3.
(2) OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.
—