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-539/24: Action brought on 17 October 2024 – Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0539

62024TN0539

October 17, 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/2025/193

13.1.2025

(Case T-539/24)

(C/2025/193)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company (Dublin, 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 26 March 2024 on State Aid SA.59029 (2020/NN) – Italy – COVID-19 Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating license (1);

order the European Commission to pay the costs; and,

order any interveners to pay their 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 decision infringes the freedom to provide services (Articles 15 of Regulation 1008/2008 (2) and 56 TFUE) and the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU).

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of the Rome I Regulation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 107(2)(b) TFEU insofar it manifestly errs in the assessment of (i) the direct causal link between the COVID-19 pandemic and the eligible damage and (ii) the proportionality of the aid measure.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission 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 Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFUE.

(1) OJ C/2024/4673.

(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 (OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/193/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

END OF DOCUMENT

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