Deutsche Lufthansa challenges the judgment that annulled the Commission’s no-objection decision on Germany’s COVID recapitalisation. The appeal raises six grounds including eligibility criteria, remuneration benchmarks, and the scope of judicial review in state aid cases.
The Court of Justice heard Case C-457/23 P on 23 April 2026. Deutsche Lufthansa AG appeals the General Court’s judgment, which annulled the Commission’s decision approving Germany’s EUR 6 billion recapitalisation package. The Commission had approved the measure under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the COVID Temporary Framework, without opening the formal investigation procedure, issuing instead a no-objection decision. The General Court ruled in 2022 that this approach was inadequate given the complexity and value of the aid.
The COVID Temporary Framework allowed Member States to recapitalise companies in serious financial distress caused by the pandemic. The Commission’s no-objection route is available where a measure raises no serious doubts about compatibility with the internal market. The General Court found that the Lufthansa recapitalisation, given its scale and its effect on competition at German airports, did raise serious doubts. Those doubts required the Commission to open a formal investigation that would have allowed third parties and competitors to submit observations.
Lufthansa raises six grounds of appeal, as it argues the General Court misidentified the correct eligibility criteria for equity injections under the COVID framework, also challenging the reasoning on remuneration benchmarks the Commission used to assess whether the recapitalisation overcompensated the airline. The airline also disputes the General Court’s findings on the significant market power condition the Commission attached to its approval, raising procedural grounds on the rights of the defence and the scope of judicial review in state aid cases.
The stakes are significant, as a Lufthansa victory at the Court of Justice would restore the Commission’s original approval and affirm the validity of the no-objection route for complex state aid measures under emergency frameworks. A defeat would confirm that even crisis-era state aid requires formal investigation when the measure’s value and competitive impact reaches this scale. The outcome will shape how the Commission handles future emergency recapitalisation approvals and how competitors can challenge no-objection decisions.
