Appeal brought on 21 August 2023 by Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2023 in Case T-79/21, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
(Case C-535/23 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, and S. Rating, D. Pérez de Lamo, abogados)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
set aside the judgment under appeal;
declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1671 of 2 August 2019 on State aid SA.47867 2018/C (ex 2017/FC) granted by France to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services 1 is annulled;
order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the appellants; and
order any other respondents and interveners to bear their own costs.
Alternatively:
set aside the judgment under appeal;
refer the case back 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 appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds.
First, the General Court made an error of law in stating that, because the appellants were mere “parties concerned”, they did not fall within the scope of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Second, the General Court made an error of law by applying a truncated need test instead of the market economy operator principle.
Third, the General Court reversed the burden of proof in its finding that the Commission had established that the price of the services was not the market price and that the services were not needed.
Fourth, in a subsidiary manner, the General Court made an error of law by considering that Aéroport Montpellier Méditerranée was not an indirect beneficiary of aid.
Fifth, the General Court erred in law regarding selectivity.
____________
1 OJ 2020 L 388, p. 1.