# C_2012303EN.01001101.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/11 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 7 June 2012 by Ryanair Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-287/12 P)

2012/C 303/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012, notified to the Appellant on 29 March 2012, in Case T-123/09 Ryanair Ltd v European Commission: |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that part of the European Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case C26/2008 (Loan of 300 million euros to Alitalia SpA) is void in so far as it does not order the recovery of the aid from the successor(s) of Alitalia and grants Italy additional time to implement this decision; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that the entire decision of 12 November 2009 in State aid case N510/2008 (Sale of assets of Alitalia SpA) is void, |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ryanair; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

alternatively,

| — | refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| | Concerning the Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case N510/2008 (Sale of assets of Alitalia SpA):
1.
Breach of law and procedure regarding admissibility. The General Court refused to acknowledge Ryanair's challenge against the merits of the Commission's decision and re-defined the subject matter of Ryanair's action as an action exclusively seeking to safeguard its procedural rights: 2.
Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999( 1 ). The obligations and monitoring mechanisms added to the measure as initially notified constituted modifications and conditions of the type attached to decisions pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of the obligations and monitoring mechanisms as undertaking; 3.
Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 through the General Court's refusal to sanction the Commission's failure to examine all the relevant characteristics of the measures in their context: 4.
Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The General Court found that the Commission did not have to examine options other than the sale of Alitalia assets as notified by Italy. By not considering whether a private investor would have chosen an alternative solution, the General Court erred in law; 5.
Other failures to apply the market economy investor principle; 6.
Failure to identify the party having to repay the aid. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by disregarding the economic continuity between Alitalia and CAI. | 1. | Breach of law and procedure regarding admissibility. The General Court refused to acknowledge Ryanair's challenge against the merits of the Commission's decision and re-defined the subject matter of Ryanair's action as an action exclusively seeking to safeguard its procedural rights: | 2. | Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999( 1 ). The obligations and monitoring mechanisms added to the measure as initially notified constituted modifications and conditions of the type attached to decisions pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of the obligations and monitoring mechanisms as undertaking; | 3. | Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 through the General Court's refusal to sanction the Commission's failure to examine all the relevant characteristics of the measures in their context: | 4. | Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The General Court found that the Commission did not have to examine options other than the sale of Alitalia assets as notified by Italy. By not considering whether a private investor would have chosen an alternative solution, the General Court erred in law; | 5. | Other failures to apply the market economy investor principle; | 6. | Failure to identify the party having to repay the aid. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by disregarding the economic continuity between Alitalia and CAI. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 1. | Breach of law and procedure regarding admissibility. The General Court refused to acknowledge Ryanair's challenge against the merits of the Commission's decision and re-defined the subject matter of Ryanair's action as an action exclusively seeking to safeguard its procedural rights: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2. | Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999( 1 ). The obligations and monitoring mechanisms added to the measure as initially notified constituted modifications and conditions of the type attached to decisions pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of the obligations and monitoring mechanisms as undertaking; | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3. | Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 through the General Court's refusal to sanction the Commission's failure to examine all the relevant characteristics of the measures in their context: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4. | Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The General Court found that the Commission did not have to examine options other than the sale of Alitalia assets as notified by Italy. By not considering whether a private investor would have chosen an alternative solution, the General Court erred in law; | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5. | Other failures to apply the market economy investor principle; | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6. | Failure to identify the party having to repay the aid. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by disregarding the economic continuity between Alitalia and CAI. | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Concerning the Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case C26/2008 (Loan of 300 million euros to Alitalia SpA): failure to state reasons to support the finding of inadmissibility. |
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

OJ L 83, p. 1

---