EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-687/24: Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Ryanair v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0687

62024TN0687

December 27, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

C series

C/2025/1442

10.3.2025

(Case T-687/24)

(C/2025/1442)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, S. Rating, D. Pérez de Lamo 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 29 November 2023 on State aid SA.57543 – Denmark – COVID-19 recapitalisation of SAS and SA.58342 – Sweden – COVID-19 recapitalisation of SAS (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 five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied recital 49(c) TF (2) in assessing SAS’ eligibility for recapitalisation aid.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied recital 54 TF in assessing the proportionality of the amount of the aid.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied recitals 65 and 70 TF in assessing the remuneration of the New Hybrid Notes.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied recital 72 TF in assessing SAS’ SMP.

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

(1) OJ L/2024/2549.

(2) Communication from the Commission – Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak (OJ C 91I, 20.3.2020, p. 1), as amended by Commission Communications C(2020) 2215 (OJ C 112I, 4.4.2020, p. 1), C(2020) 3156 (OJ C 164, 13.5.2020, p. 35), and C(2020) 4509 (OJ C 218, 2.7.2020, p. 3). After the adoption of the initial decision, the Temporary Framework was amended by Commission Communications C(2020) 7127 (OJ C 340I, 13.10.2020, p. 1), C(2021) 564 (OJ C 34, 1.2.2021, p. 6), C(2021) 8442 (OJ C 473, 24.11.2021, p. 1) and C(2022) 7902 (OJ C 423, 7.11.2022, p. 9).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1442/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia