# C_2022311EN.01001601.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/16

---

Action brought on 17 June 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-366/22)

(2022/C 311/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA. 56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA. 56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission 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 pandemic. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission 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 pandemic.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates 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 and free establishment, and Regulation 1008/2008 (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates 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 and free establishment, and Regulation 1008/2008 (2).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

(1)  OJ 2022, C/177, p. 1.

(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), OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3.

---