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 T-1118/23: Action brought on 27 November 2023 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN1118

62023TN1118

November 27, 2023
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2024/1103

5.2.2024

(Case T-1118/23)

(C/2024/1103)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the European Commission decision (EU) 2023/1683 of 26 July 2022 on State aid SA.26494 2012/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the operator of La Rochelle airport and certain airlines operating at that airport (OJ 2023, L 217, p. 5) insofar as it concerns the applicants; and

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration and the applicants’ rights as adversely affected persons, to be heard and to have access to the file.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of the Commission in considering the applicants as indirect beneficiaries of aid to the airport.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the Commission’s failure to assess, in an overall and concrete manner, whether the airport had sought to acquire the marketing services concerned under normal market conditions.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of the Commission in rejecting the comparator analysis.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging the Commission’s flawed incremental profitability analysis.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the airport services agreements and marketing services agreements to the State.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging the Commission’s failure to examine the selective nature of several agreements.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1103/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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