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-353/21 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0353

62021CN0353

June 4, 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

30.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/18

(Case C-353/21 P)

(2021/C 349/23)

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, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland

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) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair 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 five pleas in law.

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the Appellant’s plea concerning the infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

Second plea in law: the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Third 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.

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

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the 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