712 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM On 31 March 2020, by a decision not to raise objections, the Commission considered that COVID-19 constituted an exceptional occurrence. Accordingly, that moratorium on the payment of taxes constituted aid compatible with the internal market, appropriate for remedying the economic disruption caused by the pandemic. Moreover, the moratorium was not considered discriminatory as the beneficiaries included all airlines with French licences. Ryanair raised several pleas, including breach of the principles of nondiscrimination on the grounds of nationality and freedom to provide services, the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the pandemic, the obligation to state reasons and violation of procedural rights, none of which were upheld by the General Court of the European Union in its ruling of 17 February 2021. Nevertheless, a number of decisions concerning other types of financial support for airlines by different Member States will be examined in greater detail in the following paragraphs. 4.2. Danish State aid to SAS The first plea raised by Ryanair in its challenge to the Commission’s decision not to raise objections to the Danish State aid concerned the condition that any aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) cannot be intended to remedy the damage suffered by a single victim, in this case, SAS. The CJEU held that the Member States are under no obligation to grant aid to remedy the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence. However, if they decide to do so, the Commission must be timely notified of the aid project [art. 108(3)] in order to reach a decision not to raise objections. In addition to that duty of timely notification, Member States are not bound to remedy all the damage caused by the exceptional occurrence and cannot, therefore, be required to grant aid to all the victims of that damage. In conclusion, the European judges considered that the Member States are not obliged to compensate all or part of such damage and do not have to cover every company in that situation. In the second plea, according to Ryanair, the Commission allegedly erred in considering that the measure at issue was proportionate to the harm caused to SAS by the COVID-19 pandemic, thus possibly overcompensating for the harm suffered. The CJEU explained that article 107(2)(b) TFEU must be interpreted restrictively, meaning that only economic disadvantages directly caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences can be compensated, but did not consider the Danish State aid disproportionate – a compensation exceeding the losses suffered by SAS.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==