- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-337/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium — Excess profit exemption — Tax ruling — Consistent administrative practice — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(d) — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Concept of ‘act’ — Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ — ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0337
62019CA0337
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
22.11.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 471/3
(Case C-337/19 P) (1)
(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium - Excess profit exemption - Tax ruling - Consistent administrative practice - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(d) - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Concept of ‘act’ - Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ - ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)
(2021/C 471/03)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, C. Pochet and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura and M. Clayton, avocates), Magnetrol International (represented by: H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, advocaten), Ireland
Interveners in support of the defendants: Soudal NV, Esko-Graphics BVBA (represented by: H. Viaene, avocat), Flir Systems Trading Belgium BVBA (represented by: T. Verstraeten and C. Docclo, avocats, and by N. Reypens, advocaat), Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, Ampar BVBA, Atlas Copco Airpower NV, Atlas Copco AB (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, W.O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten, and by A. Haelterman, avocat), Wabco Europe BVBA (represented by: E. Righini and L. Villani, avvocati, S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, and by A. Papadimitriou, avocat), Celio International NV (represented by: H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, advocaten)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 February 2019, Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission (T-131/16 and T-263/16, EU:T:2019:91);
2.Rejects the first and second pleas in law in Case T-131/16, and the first plea in law and the first part of the third plea in law in Case T-263/16;
3.Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the third to fifth pleas in law in Case T-131/16 and on the second plea in law, the second and third parts of the third plea in law, and the fourth plea in law in Case T-263/16;
4.Reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
ECLI:EU:C:2021:140