Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/20

—

(Case C-337/19 P)

(2019/C 213/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Loewenthal, F. Tomat, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 February 2019 in Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16 Belgium and Magnetrol International v. Commission EU:T:2019:91 insofar as it holds that Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 (1) of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium erroneously classified the ‘excess profit’ system as a scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2);

—refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the pleas not already assessed, and

—reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law by concluding that it was wrong to classify the ‘excess profit’ tax ruling practice, implemented by Belgium from 2004-14, as a scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589.

The General Court misinterpreted the first condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (94) to (110) of the contested decision by concluding that the Commission considered only the legislative acts listed in recital (99) as constituting the basis of the ‘excess profit’ scheme.

The General Court misinterpreted the second condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (100) to (108) of the contested decision by concluding that the grant of the ‘excess profit’ exemption necessitated the adoption of further implementing measures.

The General Court misinterpreted the third condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (66), (102), (103), (109), (139) and (140) of the contested decision by concluding that further implementing measures were necessary to define the beneficiaries of the ‘excess profit’ exemption.

Finally, the General Court disregarded the ratio legis of Article 1(d) by concluding that the Commission erroneously classified the ‘excess profit’ system as a scheme within the meaning of that provision.

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

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).

—