CELEX: 62021CN0353
Language: en
Date: 2021-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-353/21 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)

30.8.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 349/18
            
         
      Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)
      (Case C-353/21 P)
      (2021/C 349/23)
      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, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland
      
         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) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair 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.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.
      First plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the Appellant’s plea concerning the infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
      Second plea in law: the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
      Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.
      Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
      Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.