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 C-441/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-628/20, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0441

62021CN0441

July 16, 2021
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

C 382/18

(Case C-441/21)

(2021/C 382/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc, E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, and I. G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

declare in accordance with Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 5414 final of 31 July 2020 on State Aid SA.57659 (2020/N) — Spain — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation fund is void; and

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the appellant’s plea concerning the misapplication of the balancing test.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in the classification of the aid as an aid scheme.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.

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