In view of the above and though not specifically targeting the travel and tourism sectors, the main axes of the Commission’s mandate and the future legislative measures will also influence the evolution of those same sectors76. Turning to the perspective of recent enforcement in different areas of Competition law, the following are examples already from 2025. On February 5 the General Court of the European Union (General Court) dismissed Ryanair’s action against the Commission’s decision once again approving rescue aid to TAP in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic77. The Commission’s first decision considered that the measure at issue constituted State aid and compatible with the internal market78. And was annulled by the General Court given the “shortcomings” in the Commission’s assessment79. Subsequently, the Commission adopted a decision again approving the aid and in particular found that TAP SGPS was eligible for rescue aid. On March 19 the Commission sent two sets of preliminary findings to Alphabet for failing to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), regarding two services for which it has been designated as a gatekeeper. In this context, the Commission has informed Alphabet of its preliminary view that certain features 76 This is acknowledged notably by the European Travel Agents’ and Tour Operators’ Association (ECTAA) in its press release of January 31 2025, available at: https://news.gtp.gr/2025/01/31/ectaa-eu-compass-for-competitivenessto-strengthen-europes-travel-sector/ 77 Judgment of the General Court in Case T-743/21 | Ryanair v Commission (TAP II; rescue aid; COVID-19). The General Court considers that the Commission did not disregard the conditions of eligibility for rescue aid. Furthermore, according to the General Court, the Commission was right to consider that the measure met an objective of common interest, that it was appropriate and proportionate. Nor could the Commission be criticised for having carried out an incomplete examination of the negative effects of the aid measure at issue. 7 The principles of nondiscrimination, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment were also not breached. The General Court also rejects Ryanair’s claims that the examination carried out by the Commission was incomplete and insufficient and that the decision was insufficiently reasoned. Press releasea available at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/ application/pdf/2025-02/cp250013en.pdf. 78 Commission Decision C(2020) 3989 of 10 June 2020 on State aid SA.57369 (2020/N) – COVID-19 – Portugal – Aid granted to TAP, adopted on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), read in conjunction with the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (R&R Guidelines). In June 2020, Portugal had notified the Commission of an aid measure in favour of Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SGPS (TAP SGPS), the parent company and 100% shareholder of the airline TAP Air Portugal. The notified aid, the maximum budget of which is €1.2 billion, concerned a loan agreement concluded between, inter alia, Portugal as lender, TAP Air Portugal as borrower and TAP SGPS as guarantor. By that measure, Portugal intended to keep the beneficiary in operation for six months, between July and December 2020. 79 More precisely, by judgment of 19 May 2021, Ryanair v Commission (TAP; Covid-19), T-465/20, the General Court annulled the decision on the ground that the Commission had not indicated whether TAP SGPS belonged to a larger business group, which was necessary in order to determine whether TAP SGPS was eligible for rescue aid within the meaning of point 22 of the R&R Guidelines. The General Court gave the Commission the possibility to adopt a new decision within two months to remedy those shortcomings. To that end, it suspended the effects of the annulment pending the adoption of the new decision. 146 MARGARIDA ROSADO DA FONSECA
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==