# C_2021338EN.01003601.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/36

---

Action brought on 6 July 2021 — Ryanair and Ryanair Sun v Commission

(Case T-398/21)

(2021/C 338/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Ryanair Sun S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (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 applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 22 December 2020 on State Aid SA.59158 — Poland – COVID-19 — Aid to LOT, (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 22 December 2020 on State Aid SA.59158 — Poland – COVID-19 — Aid to LOT, (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 five 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. In particular, it is alleged that the defendant failed to demonstrate that LOT is eligible to the recapitalisation aid under the Temporary Framework and it is also alleged that the defendant failed to assess whether there were any other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also argues that the defendant conducted a flawed review of the proportionality of the amount of recapitalisation, of the aid’s remuneration and the conditions for exit of the State as well as of the elements of the aid concerning governance and the prevention of undue distortions of competition. |
| --- | --- |

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. In particular, it is alleged that the defendant failed to demonstrate that LOT is eligible to the recapitalisation aid under the Temporary Framework and it is also alleged that the defendant failed to assess whether there were any other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also argues that the defendant conducted a flawed review of the proportionality of the amount of recapitalisation, of the aid’s remuneration and the conditions for exit of the State as well as of the elements of the aid concerning governance and the prevention of undue distortions of competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by considering that it could provide a legal basis to justify the aid. The applicant also argues that the defendant did not establish that the aid is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to address a serious disturbance in the Polish economy, and failed to perform a ‘balancing test’i.e., to weigh the aid’s expected positive effects in terms of realisation of the objectives set out in Article 107(3)(b) TFEU against its negative effects in terms of distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by considering that it could provide a legal basis to justify the aid. The applicant also argues that the defendant did not establish that the aid is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to address a serious disturbance in the Polish economy, and failed to perform a ‘balancing test’i.e., to weigh the aid’s expected positive effects in terms of realisation of the objectives set out in Article 107(3)(b) TFEU against its negative effects in terms of distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States.

| 3. | Third 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., non-discrimination, the free provision of services –applied to air transport through Regulation No 1008/2008 (2)- and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third 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., non-discrimination, the free provision of services –applied to air transport through Regulation No 1008/2008 (2)- and free establishment).

| 4. | Forth 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.

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

5.

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

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 260, p. 10-11.

(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).

---