Skip to content

Keyword: air transport

  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

‘Naked Economic Nationalism’ · Case T-111/21 Croatia Airlines - COVID-19 · Annotation by Marijana Liszt journal article

Annotation of the Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 in Case T-111/21 Croatia Airlines - COVID-19

Marijana Liszt

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 199 - 204

This case note concerns one of many European Commission decisions approving State aid as damage compensation to airlines due to extraordinary occurrences (COVID-19 outbreak), on the basis of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, considered to be an ‘automatic exemption’, meaning that the discretionary powers of the Commission are confined to verifying the fulfilment of the required conditions. This Commission decision has been challenged by the tireless Ryanair DAC, which has been challenging many State aid measures granted to airlines by the Member states simultaneously, on the basis of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU as well as other applicable grounds (Article 107(3)(b); the COVID-19 Temporary Framework). This judgment has been chosen as it refers to Croatia Airlines, the Croatian national air carrier, presenting the first ever General Court decision referring to State aid granted to a Croatian undertaking by the Republic of Croatia. The case raises several peculiar legal questions concerning the notions of discrimination and the difference in treatment. It is also worth mentioning the Court’s argument regarding Croatia Airlines’ essential role in Croatia’s air transport connectivity.

Covid State Aid Policy for Aviation Backfired · Joined cases T-34/21 and T-87/21 Ryanair and Condor v Commission (Lufthansa; COVID-19) · Annotation by Tania Pantazi journal article

Annotation of the Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2023 in Joined cases T-34/21 and T-87/21 Ryanair and Condor v Commission (Lufthansa; COVID-19)

Tania Pantazi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 4, Page 414 - 419

State aid to European airlines during the Covid-19 crisis has been the object of several judgments of the General Court since 2021. This case marks a turn in previous case law, as it annuls the approval of the Commission for multiple reasons of substance relating to misapplication of the Covid State Aid Temporary Framework. The measure at issue was a recapitalisation scheme for one of Europe’s largest airline groups, Deutsche Lufthansa. The decision may affect other pending cases on measures for European airlines.

Comune di Milano: Explanation of the Conditions under Which an Injection of Capital Became a State Aid Measure · Case C-160/19 P Comune di Milano v Commission · Annotation by Alice Pisapia journal article

Annotation of the Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2020 in Case C-160/19 P Comune di Milano v Commission

Alice Pisapia

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 2, Page 188 - 193

The 2020 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union – C-160/19 P Comune di Milano v Commission – illustrates under which conditions the injection of capital in a company owned and controlled by the State can be considered a measure imputable to the State. The City of Milan (Comune di Milano) tried, until last instance, to defend the injection of public capital in the company SEA Handling SpA which was managing ground services at Milan-Linate and Milan-Malpensa airports. However, the appeal against the judgment of the General Court was supporting the Commission’s interpretation about the qualification of the measure as a State aid unlawfully provided and, in any case, incompatible with the European internal market. The present case note analyses two relevant juridical concepts: the private operator principle as applied by the Court with the private investor test, and the intensity of the judicial review to be applied by the Court during the appeal of a Commission decision in case of complex economic assessments. Finally, given the apical role of the Commission in State aid, the Court cannot replace the assessment carried out by the Commission; it can only revise it if the misapplication of the private investor principle was vitiated by a manifest error.

  • «
  • 1
  • »

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024