Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, supported by Air One SpA
(Case C-615/11 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, S. Noë, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd, Air One SpA
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011, notified to the Commission on 30 September 2011, in Case T-442/07 Ryanair Ltd v European Commission in so far as it declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees complained of in the letter;
reject the application for a declaration of failure to act by the Commission of the European Communities in failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd;
order Ryanair Ltd to pay the costs;
alternatively,
- refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;
- reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:-
- Misinterpretation of Articles 10(1) and 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The General Court erred in law when it set out the criteria that determine if the Commission is in possession of information or a complaint about alleged unlawful aid;
- Error in the legal qualification of Ryanair's letter of 16 June 2006. The General Court concluded that the Commission had received a complaint or information regarding alleged unlawful aid in the form of the letter of 16 June 2006. The Commission considers that in so doing the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of that letter;
- Error in law in ascertaining whether the Commission was under a duty to act for the purposes of Article 232 EC by reference to the requirements of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
____________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