# C_2021053EN.01004601.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/46

---

Action brought on 5 December 2020 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission

(Case T-718/20)

(2021/C 53/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WIZZ Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (WIZZ Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, 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 24 February 2020 in State aid Case SA.56244 — Rescue aid to Tarom (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 February 2020 in State aid Case SA.56244 — Rescue aid to Tarom (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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid to Tarom does not satisfy the compatibility condition of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2) regarding the need for the rescue aid to contribute to an objective of genuine common interest because the Commission failed to assess the significance of Tarom on the domestic and international air transport markets and the likelihood of substitution of Tarom. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid to Tarom does not satisfy the compatibility condition of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2) regarding the need for the rescue aid to contribute to an objective of genuine common interest because the Commission failed to assess the significance of Tarom on the domestic and international air transport markets and the likelihood of substitution of Tarom.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the ‘one time, last time’ compatibility condition of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines because Tarom’s previous restructuring period lasted until 2019, i.e., less than ten years before the European Commission approved new rescue aid to Tarom through its decision of 24 February 2020. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the ‘one time, last time’ compatibility condition of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines because Tarom’s previous restructuring period lasted until 2019, i.e., less than ten years before the European Commission approved new rescue aid to Tarom through its decision of 24 February 2020.

| 3. | Third 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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third 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 violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

(1)  OJ 2020, C 310, p. 3

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

---