# C_2021217EN.01006801.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/68

---

Action brought on 20 April 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission

(Case T-216/21)

(2021/C 217/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Malta Air ltd. (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: F-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, 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 of 4 May 2020 on State aid SA.57082 (2020/N) — France — COVID-19 — Cadre temporaire 107(3)(b) TFEU — Garantie et prêt d’actionnaire au bénéfice d’Air France (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2020 on State aid SA.57082 (2020/N) — France — COVID-19 — Cadre temporaire 107(3)(b) TFEU — Garantie et prêt d’actionnaire au bénéfice d’Air France (1); and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

| — | The applicants have also requested that their action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants have also requested that their action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM and Air France-KLM from the scope of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM and Air France-KLM from the scope of the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3) (b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the French economy; (ii) failing to properly assess whether the beneficiary was in financial difficulties; (iii) finding that the Shareholder Loan was compatible with the then applicable Temporary Framework and reviewing it as a debt measure instead of equity; and (iv) by violating its obligation 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’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3) (b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the French economy; (ii) failing to properly assess whether the beneficiary was in financial difficulties; (iii) finding that the Shareholder Loan was compatible with the then applicable Temporary Framework and reviewing it as a debt measure instead of equity; and (iv) by violating its obligation 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 defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU since the late 1980s (2). The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. Nevertheless, it is argued that the defendant ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of France by authorising France to reserve aid to Air France. The applicants also argue that Article 107(3) (b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU since the late 1980s (2). The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. Nevertheless, it is argued that the defendant ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of France by authorising France to reserve aid to Air France. The applicants also argue that Article 107(3) (b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 50, p. 3.

(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).

---