- 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-737/20: Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0737
62020TN0737
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
15.2.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 53/50
(Case T-737/20)
(2021/C 53/66)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 3 July 2020 on State Aid SA.56943 (2020/N) — Latvia — COVID-19: Recapitalisation of airBaltic (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 four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its communication Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Latvian economy, that airBaltic is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’), and by finding that airBaltic had no significant market power.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment).
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.
* Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ 2020, C 346/1, p. 2