18.9.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

—

(Case C-490/23 P)

(2023/C 329/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Neos SpA (represented by: M. Merola and A. Cogoni, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair DAC, European Commission, Blue panorama airlines SpA, Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—annul the judgment under appeal;

—refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law alleging failure to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court and error in law with reference to: (i) the relationship between State aid and other Treaty provisions, and (ii) the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.

—The General Court failed to state reasons in its conclusion that, in Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence (‘the contested decision’), the Commission failed to state reasons as to why it considered both that the minimum remuneration requirement was indissolubly linked to the aid measure at issue and that that requirement was not inherent in the objective of that measure.

—The General Court committed an error in law on the scope of the two concepts in criticising the allegedly contradictory nature of considering an element of an aid measure at once indissolubly linked to a measure and not inherent in its objective.

—The General Court committed an error in law on the scope of the obligation to state reasons in requesting specific reasoning as to why an element of an aid measure is, respectively, linked to that measure and not inherent in its objective.

Second plea in law alleging distortion of the contested decision and error in law as to the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU; error in law as to the application of Article 56 TFEU in the aviation sector; and error in law and distortion of the contested decision as to the relationship between Article 8(1) of the Rome I Regulation (1) and internal market rules.

—The General Court distorted the contested decision in incorrectly assuming that the Commission had examined the compatibility of the minimum remuneration requirement only in light of Article 8(1) of the Rome I Regulation.

—The General Court misinterpreted the scope of the obligation to state reasons in requiring the Commission to rule on the relevance of Article 56 TFEU to assess the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market.

—The General Court committed an error in law in concluding that the Commission failed to justify its choice not to examine the compatibility of the minimum remuneration requirement with Article 56 TFEU, as this provision does not apply to the air transport sector.

—The General Court distorted the contested decision and committed an error in law as to the relationship between Article 8(1) of the Rome I Regulation and internal market rules in concluding that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning as to the minimum remuneration requirement’s compliance with internal market rules.

* Language of the case: English.

Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008, L 177, p. 6).

—