- 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-743/21: Action brought on 22 November 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0743
62021TN0743
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
24.1.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 37/50
(Case T-743/21)
(2022/C 37/65)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s decision of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA. 57369 (2020/N) — Portugal — Rescue aid to TAP SGPS; and
—order the defendant 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 defendant erred in law and manifestly erred in its assessment by claiming that the State aid falls within the material scope of the R&R Guidelines, without correctly determining whether the applicant’s difficulties are too serious to be dealt with by itself, and are intrinsic or the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group to which it belongs.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. It is argued that the defendant’s review of the satisfaction of the compatibility condition that aid should contribute to an objective of common interest and its assessment of the rescue aid’s appropriateness and proportionality and of its negative effects are flawed by errors in law and manifest errors of assessment.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of non-discrimination and free provision of services (applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008) and also the principle of free establishment.
4.Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the Commission’s duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.
Language of the case: English
(1) OJ 2021 C 345, p. 1.
(2) 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).