21.11.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/11

—

(Case C-564/22 P)

(2022/C 441/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd, London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, O.W. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ITV plc

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—render final judgment and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 of the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning Controlled Foreign Company Group Financing Exemption (the ‘contested decision’);

—or in the alternative, refer the case back to the General court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on five pleas in law:

First, the General Court erred in law by distorting national law and overlooking evidence in identifying the reference system as the United Kingdom CFC (controlled foreign companies) rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (the ‘TIOPA’), rather than the United Kingdom corporate taxation system of which they form an inseparable part.

Second, even if the reference system would be the United Kingdom CFC rules, the General Court erred in law in identifying the objective of the reference system, and consequently erred in identifying the provisions in Chapter 5 of the United Kingdom CFC rules as determining the ‘normal’ taxation of non-trading finance profits such that the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA would confer an ‘advantage’.

Third, the General Court erred in law in relation to the finding of a selective advantage. In particular, the General Court erred in law by incorrectly concluding that economic operators, which were able to benefit from the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA, were in a comparable legal and factual situation with companies, which were not.

Fourth, the General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU and Article 296 TFEU because it failed to address pleas in law and breached its duty to state reasons, because the General Court substituted its own reasoning for the reasoning of the Commission in the contested decision.

Fifth, the General Court erred in law in concluding that the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.

*

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ 2019 L 216, p. 1.

—