The High Court has struck out part of Ryanair’s legal challenge against the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission over assistance provided to an Italian competition authority during a search of Ryanair’s Dublin offices.
In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2025, Mr Justice Max Barrett ordered that paragraphs 20 to 27 of Ryanair’s statement of claim be removed.
Those passages challenged the CCPC’s decision to assist the Italian competition authority, referred to in the judgment as the AGCM, and to apply for a District Court search warrant. Ryanair alleged that the AGCM had failed to provide relevant information to the CCPC and that the Irish regulator should have made further inquiries before agreeing to assist.
The High Court did not decide whether those underlying allegations were correct. Instead, it held that Ryanair had used the wrong legal procedure to challenge the CCPC’s decision.
Section 15AAA of the Competition Act 2002, as amended in 2022, provides that decisions or acts by a competent authority under specified parts of the Act cannot be questioned except through judicial review or another procedure specifically provided by legislation. The mutual-assistance provisions under which the CCPC acted fall within that statutory scheme.
Ryanair became aware of the CCPC decision when the search warrant was executed on 8 March 2024. The legislation imposed an eight-week period for seeking judicial review of decisions under the relevant mutual-assistance provisions.
Ryanair argued that its plenary proceedings substantially complied with what a judicial review would have required and relied on earlier case law permitting public-law challenges through plenary actions in some circumstances.
Barrett J rejected that argument, finding the wording of the 2022 legislation clear and unambiguous. He said Ryanair had never sought or obtained the leave required for judicial review and could not pursue a route expressly excluded by statute.
The remaining parts of Ryanair’s proceedings were not determined by this judgment. The court said it would hear the parties separately on costs.