# C_2022109EN.01003101.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/31

---

Action brought on 14 January 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-28/22)

(2022/C 109/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and G.-I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA.63203 (2021/N) — Germany — Restructuring aid for Condor; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA.63203 (2021/N) — Germany — Restructuring aid for Condor; 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 ten pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed an error of law and that the contested State aid falls outside the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (1), because Condor Flugdienst GmbH (‘Condor’) is being taken over by a larger business group and its difficulties are not intrinsic and result of an arbitrary allocation of costs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed an error of law and that the contested State aid falls outside the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (1), because Condor Flugdienst GmbH (‘Condor’) is being taken over by a larger business group and its difficulties are not intrinsic and result of an arbitrary allocation of costs.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to demonstrate a market failure and social hardship. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to demonstrate a market failure and social hardship.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving a State aid and does not establish that ‘Condor’ has exhausted all market options. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving a State aid and does not establish that ‘Condor’ has exhausted all market options.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is suitable to restore ‘Condor’s’ long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is suitable to restore ‘Condor’s’ long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the appropriateness of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the appropriateness of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the proportionality of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the proportionality of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the State aid. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the State aid.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision 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). |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision 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).

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

9.

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

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

10.

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

---

(1)  Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1-28).

(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).

---