716 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM Moreover, it cannot be required that, in order to be validly based on this article, an aid measure must remedy a serious disturbance in the economy on its own. Contrary to Ryanair’s claim, the Court found that the Commission took into account several elements when considering that the aid was indeed intended to remedy the serious disturbance in the Finnish economy caused by the pandemic, namely: a) the operation by Finnair of a major domestic and international network, ensuring Finland’s connectivity; b) the importance of Finnair for passenger and freight transport – in 2019, it carried 67% of passengers to, from and within Finland, and is the only airline operating at most Finnish regional airports and the leading air freight operator in Finland; c) the repercussions on Finnish airports – the situation of Finavia, which operates Finnish regional airports, is inextricably linked to the survival of Finnair; d) its relevance as an employer both directly (6,800 employees) and indirectly, with Finnair’s purchases from its suppliers amounting to 1.9 billion euros in 2019, of which 40% came from Finnish companies; it is the sixteenth most important company in Finland due to its contribution to GDP, with an added value of 600 million euros; and e) the impact on research, with Finnair being involved in a research project on electric aircraft. According to the General Court, there was probably no viable alternative to Finnair’s contribution to the needs of Finland’s economy and connectivity. Consequently, the measure designed to maintain Finnair’s activities, during and after the crisis, was appropriate to remedy the serious disturbance of the Finnish economy. Ryanair invoked – also unsuccessfully – that the added value created by Finnair in the event of bankruptcy would not disappear completely. In the light of article 107(3) TFEU, the European judge rejected the entire reasoning as to whether the aid could remedy the serious disturbance in the Finnish economy. Furthermore, it is worth pondering if there was, as claimed by Ryanair, a failure to comply with the alleged obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==