# C_2022398EN.01002801.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/28

---

Action brought on 21 July 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-458/22)

(2022/C 398/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 December 2021 C(2021) 9941 final on the State aid SA.60165 (2021/C, ex 2021/N) which Portugal is planning to implement for TAP SGPS; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 December 2021 C(2021) 9941 final on the State aid SA.60165 (2021/C, ex 2021/N) which Portugal is planning to implement for TAP SGPS; (1) and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the eligibility of TAP is not established. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the eligibility of TAP is not established.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the demonstration of the risk of disruption of an important service and the systemic role of TAP. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the demonstration of the risk of disruption of an important service and the systemic role of TAP.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is apt to restore TAP’s long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the need for State intervention and its incentive effect (i.e. failure to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving State aid and to establish that TAP has exhausted all market options). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the need for State intervention and its incentive effect (i.e. failure to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving State aid and to establish that TAP has exhausted all market options).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the proportionality of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the proportionality of the aid.

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

7.

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

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 139, p. 19.

---