- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-757/23 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2023 by Magnetrol International and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered 20 September 2023 in Cases T 263/16 RENV, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16 et T-832/16, Magnetrol International and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0757
62023CN0757
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
Series C
—
C/2024/1535
(Case C-757/23 P)
(C/2024/1535)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Magnetrol International, Puratos, Delta Light, Ontex, Siemens Industry Software, BASF Antwerpen NV, Ansell Healthcare Europe NV, Trane, Inc., Kinepolis Group, Vasco Group, Mayekawa Europe NV/SA (represented by: H. Gilliams, L. Goossens, advocaten)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Celio International SA, Astra Sweets, Soudal NV, Esko-Graphics BVBA, Flir Systems Trading Belgium, Celio International SA, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Ampar, Atlas Copco Airpower, Atlas Copco AB, ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe
Form of order sought
The Appellants claim that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings of Appellants in the present case, as well as in Cases T-263/16, T-263/16 RENV, C-337/19 P, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16, and
—annul Commission Decision 2016/1699 (1) or, in any event, Article 2 thereof.
Or, in the alternative:
—set aside the judgment under appeal, and
—refer the Case back to the General Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The first ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 correctly defined the reference framework and also was justified in finding that the scheme derogates from the reference system.
The second ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 was justified in qualifying the scheme as a selective measure.
The third ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that the recovery order, as expressed in Commission Decision 2016/1699, was justified.
Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (OJ 2016, L 260, p. 61).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1535/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—