- 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-649/24: Action brought on 13 December 2024 – Ryanair v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0649
62024TN0649
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/2025/1231
(Case T-649/24)
(C/2025/1231)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F. -C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, D. Pérez de Lamo, S. Rating 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 28 June 2024 C(2024) 4623 final on the State aid SA. 110687/SA.110688 – (2024/N) Sweden – Denmark, Restructuring of SAS Group (1); 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 aid falls outside the material scope of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (‘R&R Guidelines’).
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied the R&R Guidelines, and committed a manifest error of assessment regarding demonstration of the risk of disruption of an important service and the systemic role of SAS.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching, and that it is apt to restore SAS’ long-term viability within a reasonable period of time and without relying on further State aid.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision does not establish the incentive effect 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 Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure.
9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.
Official Journal C/2024/5574 and C/2024/5576 of 19 September 2024
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1231/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
END