# C_2021062EN.01004201.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/42

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-769/20)

(2021/C 62/53)

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 C(2020) 5616 final of 11 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57586 (2020/N) — Estonia COVID-19: Recapitalisation and subsidised interest loan for Nordica; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision C(2020) 5616 final of 11 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57586 (2020/N) — Estonia COVID-19: Recapitalisation and subsidised interest loan for Nordica;

| — | 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 European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Estonian economy, that Nordica is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, and by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Estonian economy, that Nordica is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, and by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s.

| 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.

---