Appeal brought on 7 December 2023 by Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco AB against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Case T-278/16 and T-370/16, Atlas Copco Airpower and Others v Commission
(Case C-755/23 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Atlas Copco Airpower, Atlas Copco AB (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, O. Brouwer, A. Haelterman, A. Pliego Selie and T. van Helfteren, advocaten)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
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) 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 (‘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 of Justice; and
order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellants rely on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law and distorted evidence in identifying the reference system under Article 107(1) TFEU:
the General Court and the contested decision err in law when defining the reference system because it gives an erroneous interpretation to the meaning and scope of Article 185(2)(b) of the Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 (Income Tax Code 1992);
the General Court has distorted evidence.
Second, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the scheme conferred an advantage under Article 107(1) TFEU.
Third, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the scheme applied selectively to certain undertakings under Article 107(1) TFEU.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law in finding that aid could be recovered from all entities of a multinational group.
____________
1 OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.