The High Court has refused Ryanair’s application for an injunction aimed at forcing the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to seek the return of documents held by Italy’s competition regulator after a 2024 search of the airline’s Dublin headquarters.
The dispute arises from an investigation begun by Italy’s Autorità Garante Della Concorrenza e Del Mercato, or AGCM, into alleged misuse of a dominant market position. Those allegations remain unproven. At the AGCM’s request, the CCPC obtained a District Court search warrant and searched Ryanair’s headquarters on 8 March 2024. AGCM personnel left with 222 documents which were taken to Italy.
Ryanair is separately challenging the validity and lawfulness of the warrant. In this interlocutory application it sought orders requiring the CCPC to procure the return of the documents and confirmation that they would not be used in the Italian investigation. It also sought, if necessary, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the relief sought was mandatory because it required the CCPC to take positive action. Ryanair therefore had to establish a strong case likely to succeed at trial, rather than merely a fair issue to be tried.
The judge found that threshold was not met. He said the CCPC had no legal power or control over the AGCM and described the application as, in substance, an attempt to obtain relief against an Italian authority through an Irish body.
The court also found that Ryanair had remedies available in Italy, that the alleged urgency was undermined by delay, and that the balance of convenience was against granting the injunction. It rejected Ryanair’s request for a CJEU reference, finding no EU-law question necessary to decide the application.
The substantive challenge to the search warrant remains unresolved. The judge expressly stated that nothing in the ruling indicated how that case would ultimately be decided.