- 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 C-320/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0320
62021CN0320
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
30.8.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 349/16
—
(Case C-320/21)
(2021/C 349/20)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of Sweden, SAS AB
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal;
—declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2784 final of 24 April 2020 on State Aid SA.57061 (2020/N) — Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines 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 Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.
Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS AB by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.
Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.
—