# C_2020414EN.01004701.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/47

---

Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-628/20)

(2020/C 414/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 July 2020 on State aid SA. 57659 — Spain — Recapitalisation fund (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 July 2020 on State aid SA. 57659 — Spain — Recapitalisation fund (1); and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

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 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. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Spain to reserve aid to undertakings established in Spain, the European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to the pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Spain. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the 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. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Spain to reserve aid to undertakings established in Spain, the European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to the pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Spain. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of 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 misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission deprived itself of its discretion in reviewing State aid and committed an error of law by allowing Spain to exercise discretion in selecting beneficiaries of the aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission deprived itself of its discretion in reviewing State aid and committed an error of law by allowing Spain to exercise discretion in selecting beneficiaries of the aid scheme.

| 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 decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 C 269, p. 8.

---