# C_2022198EN.01005602.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/56

---

Action brought on 16 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-146/22)

(2022/C 198/81)

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 16 July 2021 on State aid SA.57116–COVID-19: State loan guarantee and State loan for KLM; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA.57116–COVID-19: State loan guarantee and State loan for KLM; 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to adequately define the beneficiary by (i) considering that KLM was the sole beneficiary of the aid provided by the Netherlands and (ii) failing to ensure that the aid previously granted to Air France-KLM group could not benefit or ‘spill-over’ to KLM. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to adequately define the beneficiary by (i) considering that KLM was the sole beneficiary of the aid provided by the Netherlands and (ii) failing to ensure that the aid previously granted to Air France-KLM group could not benefit or ‘spill-over’ to KLM.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) not addressing a serious disturbance in the Dutch economy and (ii) failing to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) not addressing a serious disturbance in the Dutch economy and (ii) failing to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation despite the existence of ‘serious difficulties’ and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation despite the existence of ‘serious difficulties’ and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.

---