# C_2021148EN.01002801.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/28

---

Action brought on 7 March 2021 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission

(Case T-142/21)

(2021/C 148/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WIZZ Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, 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 (EU) of 20 August 2020 in State aid Case SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 20 August 2020 in State aid Case SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air (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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s review of the eligibility and compatibility conditions for the rescue aid is flawed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s review of the eligibility and compatibility conditions for the rescue aid is flawed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (2).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant relied on inexistent or inadequate evidence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant relied on inexistent or inadequate evidence.

| 5. | Fifth 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 failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s 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.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 C 430, p. 2

(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)

---