- 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 T-494/21: Action brought on 6 August 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0494
62021TN0494
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
27.9.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 391/25
(Case T-494/21)
(2021/C 391/35)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Malta Air ltd. (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s decision of 5 April 2021 on State aid SA.59913 (2021/N) — France — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation of Air France and the Air France — KLM Holding; (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM form the scope of the contested decision.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFUE.
4.Forth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., nondiscrimination, free provision of services and free establishment).
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite the serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to meet the requirements of Article 342 TFUE and of the Regulation 1/58 pertaining to the language of official acts of EU institutions. (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">3</span>)
Language of the case: English
OJ 2021 C 240, p. 13.
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).
EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385-386).