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-736/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Case T-637/16, ZF CV Systems Europe v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0736

62023CN0736

January 1, 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/2024/1524

26.2.2024

(Case C-736/23 P)

(C/2024/1524)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe (represented by: E. Righini, avvocato, S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt and K. Beikos-Paschalis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

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 (1);

order the Commission to bear its costs and pay the appellant’s costs for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging errors of law in relation to the standard of review applied by the judgement under appeal. By not limiting itself to a plausibility check for the identification of a manifest derogation from the reference framework, the judgment under appeal fails to apply the correct standard of review for the assessment of tax measures under Article 107 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law in the identification of the reference framework. In particular, the judgment under appeal fails to take into account elements forming part of the reference system, errs in its interpretation of Article 185(2)(b) of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992, distorts the content of that provision and fails to draw the correct conclusions from the identified objective pursued by that provision.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of law in the judgment under appeal’s assessment of the selectivity of the scheme and failure to state reasons in relation to its findings that it differentiates between economic operators who are in a comparable situation.

(1) OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1524/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