EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/60

Action brought on 15 November 2012 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-500/12)

2013/C 26/120

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 1 of the Commission’s Decision dated 25 July 2012 in State aid case SA.29064 (20011/C ex 2011/NN) finding that the differential rates applied in the Irish air travel tax (‘ATT’) between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011 constituted unlawful State aid contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU;

— Annul Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the same Decision; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

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 erred in law in finding that the EUR 10 rate in the ATT was the ‘normal’ or legitimate ‘standard’ rate, despite the fact that this higher rate was at all material times unlawful as a matter of EU law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in relation to assessing the advantage granted under the ATT, by finding that Ryanair and Aer Arann were in the same position as regards the economic and competitive advantage granted by the ATT, disregarding entirely the ATT’s particular competitive effects as between Ryanair and Aer Lingus, erring in its assessment of the alleged advantage gained by Ryanair vis-à-vis other, non-Irish, carriers and ignoring the damage inflicted on Ryanair through the ATT’s advantageous effects for Ryanair’s competitors.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in relation to the recovery decision, by depriving Ireland of the required discretion to assess the extent to which the State aid distorted competition and thus restore the previous situation, by failing to analyse the relevance of the affected airlines’ ability to pass on the ATT to their customers and by disregarding the competitive distortions that will arise as a result of the recovery decision’s combination with the alleged ‘beneficiary’ airlines’ right to restitution under EU and Irish law.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to give Ryanair notice of its recovery decision as required by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 (1) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission is in breach of its obligation to state reasons, by failing to justify why, in departure from well-established case-law, the EUR 10 rate could be both unlawful under EU law and at the same time the ‘normal’ and ‘legitimate’ benchmark, and by failing to analyse the economic and competitive effects of the measure in question.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).