EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-737/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Capsugel Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0737

62023CN0737

November 30, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
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/2024/1525

(Case C-737/23 P)

(C/2024/1525)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Capsugel Belgium (represented by: C. Borgers, B. Buytaert and H. Vanhulle, advocaten, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal and annul 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 (the contested decision); or

on a precautionary basis, in the event the Court considers that it cannot decide on the annulment of the contested decision, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by substituting the interpretation of Belgian law by the competent Belgian authorities and courts with its own diverging interpretation of Belgian law.

Second, the General Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence. When assessing whether the excess profit exemption was an inherent feature of the Belgian corporate income tax rules, the General Court arbitrarily did not take all relevant factors into account. In particular, it ignored the relevant practice of national authorities and courts without providing any objective reason or justification.

Third, the General Court erred in law when finding that the contested decision had shown the existence of an advantage.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law and distorted the evidence when assessing the excess profit exemption scheme’s selectivity.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1525/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia