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-588/22 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0588

62022CN0588

September 7, 2022
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

C 424/33

(Case C-588/22 P)

(2022/C 424/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, abogados, E. Vahida, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, 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 European Commission Decision C(2020) 3970 final of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 (2020/N) — Finland COVID-19: Recapitalisation of Finnair is void; and

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by the appellant, 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 four pleas in law.

First, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the misapplication of the Temporary Framework and Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

Second, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the non-discrimination and proportionality principles.

Third, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the fundamental freedoms of establishment and provision of services.

Fourth, the General Court and the Commission failed to adequately 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