# C_2021391EN.01002502.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/25

---

Action brought on 6 August 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission

(Case T-494/21)

(2021/C 391/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Malta Air ltd. (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 5 April 2021 on State aid SA.59913 (2021/N) — France — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation of Air France and the Air France — KLM Holding; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 5 April 2021 on State aid SA.59913 (2021/N) — France — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation of Air France and the Air France — KLM Holding; (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 applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM form the scope of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM form the scope of the contested decision.

| 2. | Second 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. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second 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.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFUE.

| 4. | Forth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., nondiscrimination, free provision of services (2) and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., nondiscrimination, free provision of services (2) and free establishment).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite the serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite the serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

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

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to meet the requirements of Article 342 TFUE and of the Regulation 1/58 pertaining to the language of official acts of EU institutions. (3) |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to meet the requirements of Article 342 TFUE and of the Regulation 1/58 pertaining to the language of official acts of EU institutions. (3)

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 240, p. 13.

(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).

(3)  EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385-386).

---