CJEU Judgment: the Court upholds the Commission’s decision authorising the solvency support fund for strategic Spanish undertakings

Ryanair had challenged that decision, relating to an aid scheme amounting to €10 billion.

In July 2020, Spain notified the European Commission of an aid scheme to set up a solvency support fund. The beneficiaries were (non-financial) strategic Spanish undertakings experiencing temporary difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. That aid scheme provided for the adoption of various recapitalisation measures. It sought to remedy the serious disturbance in the Spanish economy, taken as a whole, in its diversity and with a view to sustainable economic development. The budget, financed by the State, was fixed at €10 billion until 30 June 2021.

By decision of 31 July 2020, the Commission declared the notified aid scheme compatible with the internal market.

The Irish airline Ryanair brought an action before the General Court of the European Union against the Commission’s decision. That action was dismissed by judgment of 19 May 2021. Ryanair brought an appeal before the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court.

The Court of Justice dismisses Ryanair’s appeal.

The Court of Justice confirms the General Court’s analysis that the aid scheme at issue did not breach the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and that it was proportionate. EU law allows for differences in treatment between undertakings in the case of aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State.

That type of aid has restrictive effects which are also accepted. Ryanair has failed to demonstrate that the Spanish aid scheme produced restrictive effects which went beyond those inherent in that type of aid and that the aid scheme therefore constituted an obstacle to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment.

According to the Court of Justice, the General Court correctly held that the Commission was not required to weighthe beneficial effects of the aid scheme at issue against its adverse effects on trading conditions between Member States and the maintenance of undistorted competition. The exceptional nature and the particular weight of the objectives pursued by that aid scheme permit the inference that a fair balance was struck between its beneficial effects and its adverse effects on the internal market, with the result that it is in the common interest of the European Union.

CJEU Judgment: McDonald’s loses the EU trade mark Big Mac in respect of poultry products

More information: Court of Justice of the European Union