Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

—

C/2024/1532

26.2.2024

(Case C-754/23 P)

(C/2024/1532)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: St. Jude Medical Coordination Center (SJM Coordination Center) (represented by: F. Louis and É. Bruc, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal, adjudicate on the merits 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

—set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the alleged aid from SJM Coordination Center;

—in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eleven pleas in law.

First plea: the General Court erred in law by ignoring that the first line of reasoning of the contested decision cannot stand on its own.

Second plea: the General Court erred in law and/or has manifestly distorted Article 185(2)(b) of the Belgian Income Tax Code (‘CIR’) when adjudicating on the first line of reasoning of the contested decision. Alternatively, the General Court failed to apply the ‘manifest misapplication’ standard when adjudicating on the alleged contra legem application of Article 185(2)(b) CIR.

Third plea: the General Court erred in law by accepting a wrong, generic and overly broad, reference system that does not reflect the correct reference system at issue.

Fourth plea: the General Court misapplied Belgian corporate tax law and created an artificial exception against unilateral adjustments within the reference system, ignoring that it fully allows unilateral tax adjustments.

Fifth plea: the General Court erred in law by confirming the contested decision’s wrong allegations of derogations from the reference system.

Sixth plea: the General Court erred in law by negating the risk of double taxation as a justification for tax adjustments.

Seventh plea: the General Court erred in law on the notion of tax advantage.

Eighth plea: the General Court erred in law by misapplying the concept of undertaking when determining the beneficiary of an alleged State aid.

Ninth plea: the General Court failed to address SJM Coordination Center’s pivotal legal and factual arguments and in so doing, the General Court breached its duty to state reasons and failed to adjudicate upon a dispute submitted to it.

Tenth plea: the General Court breached SJM Coordination Center’s right to good administration by (i) wrongly confirming that the European Commission satisfied its duty to state reasons and conduct a diligent and impartial examination and (ii) ignoring that the European Commission violated SJM Coordination Center’s right to be heard.

Eleventh plea: the General Court erred in law by denying the beneficiary’s right to contest recovery and failed to recognize that recovery would cause actual double taxation.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1532/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—