- 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-164/22: Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0164
62022TN0164
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
30.5.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 213/42
(Case T-164/22)
(2022/C 213/58)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 December 2021 on State aid SA.63402 (2021/N) — Portugal — COVID-19: Damage compensation to TAP II; 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 Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment).
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation despite the existence of ‘serious difficulties’ and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.