22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/54

(Case T-37/23)

(2023/C 179/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), MJN Global Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Quigley, KC, M. Whitehouse and P. Halford, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the Commission’s Decision C(2022) 7665 final of 31 October 2022 in Case SA.34914 (2013/C) — Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (the ‘Contested Decision’); (1) and

—order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging lack of competence, in that the Commission has no competence pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the UK from the EU, as the case file SA.34914 and all associated procedures were closed and terminated by the adoption of the final decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018; (2) and no new case number was allocated to the Commission’s investigation concerning MJN Holdings (Gibraltar) Limited prior to the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, or at all.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in that the Commission has infringed Article 6(1) of the Procedural Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) which requires the Commission in a decision to open a formal investigation to summarise all the relevant issues of fact and law in its possession, by failing to include relevant information that the applicants had previously submitted, and which the Commission had in its possession, as regards the non-continuation of the 2012 MJN GibCo tax ruling beyond 1 January 2014 and as regards the non-taxability of the royalty income on the proper application of Gibraltar law. Moreover, prior to taking the Article 6(1) decision (the Contested Decision), the Commission, in the course of its preliminary assessment and in accordance with the principle of sound administration, should have, in any event, discussed with the United Kingdom the information previously submitted by the applicants.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of Article 107 and 108 TFEU, in that the Contested Decision was taken after a wholly unreasonable delay, contrary to the principle of sound administration.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ 2023, C 52, p. 10.

(2) Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (notified under document C(2018) 7848) (OJ 2019, L 119, p. 151).

(3) 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).