# C_2021242EN.01005402.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/54

---

Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-238/21)

(2021/C 242/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. 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 defendant’s decision of 17 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57543 — Denmark and SA.58342 — Sweden — COVID-19: Recapitalisation of SAS AB (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 17 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57543 — Denmark and SA.58342 — Sweden — COVID-19: Recapitalisation of SAS AB (1); and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant 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 defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that SAS AB is eligible for the aid and by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also complains that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, by failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, by failing to properly assess the beneficiary’s significant market power and apply corresponding remedies, by failing to prevent aggressive commercial expansion, 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’), and, finally, by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that SAS AB is eligible for the aid and by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also complains that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, by failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, by failing to properly assess the beneficiary’s significant market power and apply corresponding remedies, by failing to prevent aggressive commercial expansion, 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’), and, finally, by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant 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 defendant 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 defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 50, p. 3-5.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).

---