# C_2021072EN.01003301.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/33

---

Action brought on 15 January 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-14/21)

(2021/C 72/44)

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 21 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57544(2020/N) — Belgium COVID-19: Aid to Brussels Airlines; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57544(2020/N) — Belgium COVID-19: Aid to Brussels Airlines; 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 Commission misapplied its Temporary Framework by finding that the loan to Brussels Airlines complied with the Temporary Framework and that Brussels Airlines is eligible to recapitalisation aid, by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation, finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, and failing to impose an effective ban on aggressive expansion by Brussels Airlines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied its Temporary Framework by finding that the loan to Brussels Airlines complied with the Temporary Framework and that Brussels Airlines is eligible to recapitalisation aid, by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation, finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, and failing to impose an effective ban on aggressive expansion by Brussels Airlines.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Belgian economy, 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 misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Belgian economy, 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’).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.

| 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.

---