Ryanair Designated Activity Company and Another v The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and Another [No. 2]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 18 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 637
• Docket Number: [2024 No. 1487 HP]

Between:

Ryanair DAC

Ryanair Holdings Plc (each and both referred to hereafter as ‘Ryanair’)

Plaintiffs

and

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (referred to hereafter as the ‘CCPC’)

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 637

[2024 No. 1487 HP]

THE HIGH COURT

Mandatory injunction – Strength of case – Balance of convenience – Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief – Whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated a strong case

Facts: The plaintiffs, Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings plc (Ryanair), applied to the High Court for, inter alia: (1) an order pursuant to O. 50, r. 6 RSC and/or s. 28(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 directing the defendant, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (the CCPC), to procure from Italy’s Autorità Garante Della Concorrenza e Del Mercato (AGCM) (i) the return of all documents seized pursuant to the search warrant executed at Ryanair’s registered office on 8 March 2024, and (ii) written confirmation that the said documents would not be used, relied upon, or referenced in any way in the AGCM’s ongoing investigation of Ryanair, or in any decisions, including any interim decisions, or any related proceedings; and (2) if necessary, an order pursuant to Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) seeking a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Ryanair advanced several arguments as to why the relief should be treated as prohibitory rather than mandatory. Ryanair identified a series of substantive complaints underlying its challenge to the warrant. Ryanair submitted that Barrett J should proceed on the basis that any injunction granted would be complied with. It then advanced a series of points said to demonstrate that any such order would not be futile. Ryanair contended that the application arose in circumstances of extreme urgency.

Held by Barrett J that the application was, in substance and effect, one for a mandatory injunction. Applying the requisite principles to the facts, he found that Ryanair could not demonstrate a strong case that its substantive application would succeed at trial. He did not accept that the points said to demonstrate that the order would not be futile overcame the fundamental difficulty that the CCPC had no power to secure the outcome sought. He found that Ryanair had not demonstrated a strong case of the kind required for mandatory interlocutory relief to issue; on that basis alone, its application must fail. For completeness, he addressed the remaining Campus Oil factors (Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry and Energy (No. 2) [1983] IESC 19). He found that any prejudice to Ryanair was either remediable or conjectural, whereas the prejudice to the CCPC and the broader implications for the proper functioning of the EU competition-law enforcement framework were concrete and significant; the balance of convenience lay against the grant of the mandatory interlocutory relief sought. He held that the delay was inconsistent with the assertion of exceptional urgency and provided a further basis on which the relief sought must be refused. He found that the relief sought amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the conduct of the AGCM’s investigation. He found that no decision on any question of EU law was necessary to enable him to determine the application. He declined to make a reference under Art. 267 TFEU.

Barrett J declined to grant the reliefs sought by Ryanair.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 18 ^th November 2025 .

A. Introduction

1 . In these proceedings, the Plaintiffs have applied for, inter alia, the following. First, an order pursuant to O.50, r.6 RSC and/or s.28(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 directing the CCPC to procure from Italy's Autorità Garante Della Concorrenza e Del Mercato (AGCM) (i) the return of all documents seized pursuant to the search warrant executed at Ryanair's registered office on 8 ^th March 2024, and (ii) written confirmation that the said documents will not be used, relied upon, or referenced in any way in the AGCM's ongoing investigation of Ryanair, or in any decisions, including any interim decisions, or any related proceedings. Second, if necessary, an order pursuant to Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) seeking a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

2 . As to the first and second reliefs, two preliminary observations arise. First, it is unclear how seriously the procurement limb is pursued: the CCPC possesses no real power to procure anything from the AGCM. Second, it is essential that any mandatory order (and the injunctive relief being sought is mandatory in nature) be framed with sufficient precision so that the respondent knows exactly what is required and any breach may be readily identified. An imprecise order may properly be refused on that basis alone: Bula Ltd v. Tara Mines Ltd (No. 2) [1987] I.R. 95. After a full day of submissions, it remains unclear to me what precisely Ryanair seeks that the CCPC be enjoined to do beyond issuing a letter to the AGCM, the proposed content of which has not been fully detailed to me.

3 . The grounding affidavit of Eoin Kealy appears to refer to further reliefs that are not included in the Notice of Motion. No application was made to amend the Notice of Motion, and I therefore decline to consider those additional reliefs. I merely observe that, had they been properly sought, I would have refused them, mutatis mutandis, for the reasons set out in this judgment in respect of the reliefs actually sought.

4 . Ryanair contends that the present application arises in circumstances of extreme urgency. For the reasons set out in this judgment, I do not accept that characterisation, nor do I consider that the fundamental criteria for the grant of a mandatory injunction are satisfied.

B. Background

5 . In this section I outline the factual background to the proceedings.

6 . On 14 ^th September 2023, the AGCM commenced an inquiry into Ryanair's commercial practices following complaints alleging misuse of a dominant position in the Italian market. These allegations remain unproven at this time and may be untrue.

7 . On 27 ^th February 2024, the AGCM requested the assistance of the CCPC in connection with its investigation. The request was made pursuant to Art. 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 ^th December 2002 on the implementation of the competition rules laid down in Arts. 81 and 82 of the Treaty (O.J. L12, 4.1.2003).

8 . On 8 ^th March 2024, the CCPC applied to the District Court for a search warrant, supported by an information sworn by a CCPC officer. Ryanair contends that the information omitted to mention important pertinent details.

9 . The information was considered by the District Court, supplemented by additional evidence heard in camera. On 8 ^th March 2024, District Judge Michelle Finan issued the search warrant sought and on the same day Ryanair's Dublin headquarters were searched. Ryanair contends that the CCPC acted unlawfully in agreeing to assist the AGCM, failed to discharge its obligation of candour to the District Court and did not make a full and fair presentation to that court.

10 . In any event, the warrant issued on 8 ^th March 2024 and was executed later that day. CCPC officials accompanied by AGCM personnel designated as CCPC officers for the purpose of the operation, attended at Ryanair's headquarters and conducted an extensive search and seizure.

11 . Shortly after 11 p.m. on 8 ^th March 2024, the AGCM officials departed Ryanair's premises, taking with them 222 documents. They subsequently travelled to Italy with those documents. This occurred without prior notice to Ryanair and, it is alleged, notwithstanding an arrangement with the CCPC that a further meeting would be held to address outstanding matters before the search concluded.

12 . Ryanair contends that, as a consequence, it was denied an agreed opportunity to address outstanding issues with the CCPC's officers before the materials were removed from Ireland. In particular, it maintains that questions of legal privilege and relevance remained unresolved at the time the seized documents were taken from its premises.

13 . Ryanair asserts that its internal legal team and its external advisers from Arthur Cox (i) understood, up to the conclusion of the inspection, that the CCPC intended only to seal the materials, and (ii) were unaware that the CCPC had already transferred the documents to the AGCM, who had then left the premises with them and removed them from Ireland. Those materials included documents over which Ryanair had asserted legal privilege.

14 . The AGCM was released from these proceedings pursuant to a judgment I delivered on 21 ^st May 2024. That decision was affirmed on appeal on 31 ^st January 2025. During the course of these proceedings, the AGCM has furnished a number of undertakings, including the following:

• • On 16 ^th May 2024, the AGCM's counsel represented before me that:

  “[I] f the Court determines…that the warrant was invalidly obtained we will return the documents.”

• • On 7 ^th November 2024, the AGCM's counsel informed the Court of Appeal that:

  “ We always made it clear that…we would abide by the decision of the Irish courts”.

• • On 12 ^th December 2024, the AGCM's solicitors confirmed in writing that:

  “ Should the High Court rule that the warrant issued to the CCPC was invalid, our client will remove the documents obtained during the inspection and refrain from using them in any way”.

15 . Ryanair's evidence is that it understood the AGCM's assurances to mean that no decision arising from the investigation would be taken in reliance on the disputed documents until the Irish courts had ruled on the validity or lawfulness of the warrant. Ryanair contends that the...