# C_2021252EN.01003401.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/34

---

Action brought on 18 May 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-268/21)

(2021/C 252/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, 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.59029 — – Italy — COVID-19 — Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating license (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 22 December 2020 on State Aid SA.59029 — – Italy — COVID-19 — Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating license (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 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 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First 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 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

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

| 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 77, p. 6-7.

(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).

---