# C_2021110EN.01003501.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/35

---

Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Ryanair and AMS v Commission

(Case T-79/21)

(2021/C 110/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (AMS) (Dublin, 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 applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 2 August 2019 on State aid SA.47867 2018/C (ex 2017/FC) granted by France to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 2 August 2019 on State aid SA.47867 2018/C (ex 2017/FC) granted by France to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services; (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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Articles 41 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration and the applicants’ rights of defense. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Articles 41 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration and the applicants’ rights of defense.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons by stating, in a corrigendum to the contested decision, that the market economy operator test was inapplicable after having found it applicable in a previous decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons by stating, in a corrigendum to the contested decision, that the market economy operator test was inapplicable after having found it applicable in a previous decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because the application in the contested decision of the ‘real need’ test was flawed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because the application in the contested decision of the ‘real need’ test was flawed.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously disregards the Montpellier region and the airport’s need for the marketing services. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously disregards the Montpellier region and the airport’s need for the marketing services.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Montpellier airport as a beneficiary of aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Montpellier airport as a beneficiary of aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 388, p. 1.

---