European carrier Ryanair on Thursday lost a court battle against a €10-billion Spanish solvency scheme for pandemic-hit companies approved by EU competition enforcers four years ago, one of a number of lawsuits the company has launched against rivals benefiting from state aid.
The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) confirms the legality of the €10 billion solvency fund approved by the Government in 2020, considering that it falls within the parameters of state aid without violating the principle of discrimination based on nationality
The European justice system has put an end to the legal battle launched by Ryanair against Spain over the €10 billion aid fund that the Government launched in 2020 to help national companies affected by the blow of the pandemic and which the European Commission endorsed under the state aid regime.
The CJEU has endorsed this solvency fund, which was already validated in the first instance by the Luxembourg judges, under the premise that it did not exceed the parameters of this type of subsidies.
"The aid scheme in question did not violate the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and was proportionate," the CJEU said in a statement on the ruling: "Indeed, 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."
"Ryanair has failed to demonstrate that the Spanish aid scheme produced restrictive effects that go beyond the effects inherent in this type of aid, nor that the scheme therefore constituted an obstacle to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment," the ruling adds.
"The Commission was not required to weigh the positive effects of the aid scheme in question against its negative effects on the conditions of trade between Member States and the maintenance of undistorted competition."
"The exceptional nature and particular importance of the objectives pursued by the scheme allow us to consider that a fair balance is guaranteed between its positive and negative effects on the internal market, so that it responds to the common interest of the Union", explains the CJEU, which endorses the arguments given in 2021 by the General Court of the EU (GCEU).
Ryanair had launched a legal offensive in Luxembourg mainly against the state aid that European governments gave to national airlines during the pandemic lockdowns.
The Dublin based carrier had challenged the Spanish scheme at a lower tribunal but lost in 2021, prompting the company to appeal to the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Europe's highest.
In some cases, such as KLM and Luftansa, the judges sided with the low-cost airline and annulled the state aid granted by the Netherlands and Germany, while endorsing the bailouts of Air France and SAS granted by France and Sweden.
CJEU judges dismissed Ryanair's arguments.
"The Court upholds the (European) Commission's decision authorising the solvency support fund for strategic Spanish undertakings," the Court ruled.
In another development, Luxembourg also issued the opinion of the EU Advocate General on Thursday on a labour dispute involving airlines. In this case, the STAVLA union, which represents cabin crew, denounced that these personnel - generally women - receive lower subsistence allowances than pilots - a male dominated profession till date.
The National Appellate Court referred the matter to the CJEU to determine whether there is discrimination given that they are not included in the collective agreement.
As per eldiario Advocate General Szpunar recommends that the judges consider that the distinction in the allowances to these two groups is contrary to the directive on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
The opinions of lawyers are not binding, although this is the criterion followed by judges in the vast majority of cases. In any event, it would ultimately be for the National High Court to determine whether or not there has been direct discrimination.
The Advocate General observes, first of all, that it is for the Audiencia Nacional to determine whether there is indirect discrimination. However, it provides several elements that indicate that there is one in this case. Counsel considers that there are no
"objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex that justify the difference between the allowances" and indicates that in the event that "evidence of the existence of a legitimate aim is provided, the National High Court must verify whether the means to achieve it are adequate and necessary".
Display Picture Courtsy : VerukaTrip SCQ
You may like to read.....
