Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

Every law, versioned and linked. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-320/21 P)
The appeal
The third ground of appeal
Findings of the Court
108

Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-320/21 P)

Judgment of 28 Sept 2023law://eu/cjeu/2021/c-320-21/para_108@2026-11-10

108Therefore, aid cannot be considered incompatible with the internal market for reasons that are solely linked to whether the aid is selective or distorts or threatens to distort competition.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-320/21 P · ECLI:EU:C:2023:712
Decided: 28 Sept 2023
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Ryanair DAC
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: S. Rodin
Advocate General: G. Pitruzzella
Bench: 5 judges
C. Lycourgos, L.S. Rossi, J.‑C. Bonichot, S. Rodin, O. Spineanu‑Matei
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62021CJ0320

Topics

History · 1 version

28 Sept 2023Reading

Connections

Cited by 14: Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-321/21 P)5 provisions; Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Ryanair DAC and Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-457/23 P); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-458/22); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-366/22); Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Sun S.A. v European Commission (T-398/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-743/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-588/22); Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) v European Commission (T-827/22); Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH v European Commission (C-591/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-441/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-353/21); NS v European Parliament (C-218/23); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-209/21 P)2 provisions; Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-210/21 P)2 provisions
Cites 19: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)7 provisions; HGA Srl and Others (C‑630/11 P), Regione autonoma della Sardegna (C‑631/11 P), Timsas srl (C‑632/11 P) and Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA (C‑633/11 P) v European Commission (C-630/11 P, C-631/11 P, C-632/11 P, C-633/11 P); European Commission v Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (C-57/19 P); Tadej Kotnik and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (C-526/14); European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (C-83/09 P); Giuseppe Atzeni and Others, Marco Scalas and Renato Lilliu v Regione autonoma della Sardegna (C-346/03); Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-431/07); Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG (C-566/15); Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (C-270/15 P); Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (C-208/16); Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (C-381/99); Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (Text with EEA relevance); Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v European Commission (C-244/18 P); European Commission v Anthony Braesch and Others (C-284/21 P); European Commission v Aer Lingus Ltd and Ryanair Designated Activity Company (C-164/15 P, C-165/15 P); World Duty Free Group and Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (C-51/19 P); European Union Satellite Centre v KF (C-14/19 P); Ministero dell’Interno v Fastweb SpA (C-19/13); Iannelli & Volpi SpA v Ditta Paolo Meroni (C-74/76)