- 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-458/22: Action brought on 21 July 2022 — Ryanair v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0458
62022TN0458
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
17.10.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 398/28
(Case T-458/22)
(2022/C 398/34)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 December 2021 C(2021) 9941 final on the State aid SA.60165 (2021/C, ex 2021/N) which Portugal is planning to implement for TAP SGPS; (<a id="ntc1-C_2022398EN.01002801-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2022398EN.01002801-E0001">(<span class="oj-super">1</span>)</a> and
—order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the eligibility of TAP is not established.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the demonstration of the risk of disruption of an important service and the systemic role of TAP.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is apt to restore TAP’s long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the need for State intervention and its incentive effect (i.e. failure to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving State aid and to establish that TAP has exhausted all market options).
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the proportionality of the aid.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the aid.
8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.
9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.
Language of the case: English
OJ 2022 L 139, p. 19.