# C_2021079EN.01003701.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/37

---

Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-34/21)

(2021/C 79/47)

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 European Commission’s decision (EU) of 25 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57153 (2020/N) — Germany — COVID-19 — Aid to Lufthansa; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 25 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57153 (2020/N) — Germany — COVID-19 — Aid to Lufthansa; 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 European Commission misapplied its communication Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak (1) (the ‘Temporary Framework’) and misused its powers by finding that Deutsche Lufthansa AG is eligible to the aid, failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available, finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, mandating insufficient slot divestitures, and failing to impose an effective ban on aggressive expansion by the beneficiary. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied its communication Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak (1) (the ‘Temporary Framework’) and misused its powers by finding that Deutsche Lufthansa AG is eligible to the aid, failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available, finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, mandating insufficient slot divestitures, and failing to impose an effective ban on aggressive expansion by the beneficiary.

| 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 German economy, 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 by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

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 German economy, 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 by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan.

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

3.

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

| 4. | Forth 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.

Forth 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.

---

(1)  Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak, OJ C 91I/1 of 20 March 2020, as amended.

---