Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3041

10.6.2025

(Case C-291/25 P)

(C/2025/3041)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Portuguese Republic

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 Commission Decision C(2021) 5302 final of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA.57369 (2020/N) – Portugal – Rescue aid to TAP SGPS is void;

—order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair in the first instance and on appeal, and order the other parties and interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;

alternatively:

—refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

—reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on six pleas in law.

First, the General Court erred in law, manifestly distorted the facts and failed to state reasons in its interpretation of point 22 of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) (‘the Guidelines’).

Second, the General Court erred in law, manifestly distorted the facts and failed to state reasons in rejecting the applicant’s claim that the Commission infringed point 8 of the Guidelines.

Third, the General Court erred in law, manifestly distorted the facts and failed to state reasons regarding its interpretation of the notion of common interest under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law and failed to state reasons regarding the applicant’s claim on the appropriateness of the aid.

Fifth, the General Court erred in law and failed to state reasons regarding the applicant’s claim on the proportionality of the aid under point 60 of the Guidelines.

Sixth, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s incomplete examination of the negative effects of the aid pursuant to the ‘balancing test’ of Article 107(3)(c).

—

(1)

OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3041/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—