# C_2020399EN.01003902.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/39

---

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-577/20)

(2020/C 399/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 14 October 2019 on State aid SA.55394 (2019/N) — Germany — Rescue aid to Condor (1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 14 October 2019 on State aid SA.55394 (2019/N) — Germany — Rescue aid to Condor (1), and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2), because Condor’s difficulties are the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the Thomas Cook group. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2), because Condor’s difficulties are the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the Thomas Cook group.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the compatibility condition that the aid should contribute to an objective of genuine common interest. The European Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, both regarding the needs of German independent tour operators and travel agencies and the alleged absence of aircraft capacity for the repatriation of stranded passengers during the IATA winter season which is marked by seasonal overcapacity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the compatibility condition that the aid should contribute to an objective of genuine common interest. The European Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, both regarding the needs of German independent tour operators and travel agencies and the alleged absence of aircraft capacity for the repatriation of stranded passengers during the IATA winter season which is marked by seasonal overcapacity.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to review the satisfaction of the one time last time condition for rescue aid by the Thomas Cook group. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to review the satisfaction of the one time last time condition for rescue aid by the Thomas Cook group.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 C 294, p. 3

(2)  Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1

---