do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-210/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-259/20, Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2021-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, airline, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, public transport, tax relief








C_2021297EN.01001701.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/17






Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-259/20, Ryanair v Commission
(Case C-210/21 P)
(2021/C 297/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F. C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2097 final of 31 March 2020 on State Aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France — Covid-19 — Deferral of the payment of airline taxes in favour of public air transport undertakings is void; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;




alternatively:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.
First, the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
Second, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on free movement of services.
Third, the General Court erred in law in its determination of the proportionality of the aid to the quantum of the damage under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.
Fourth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.
Fifth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.