Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Belgacom International Carrier Services against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
(Case C-739/23 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Belgacom International Carrier Services (represented by: C. Borgers, B. Buytaert and H. Vanhulle, advocaten, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment under appeal 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
on a precautionary basis, in the event the Court considers that it cannot decide on the annulment of the contested decision, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law by substituting the interpretation of Belgian law by the competent Belgian authorities and courts with its own diverging interpretation of Belgian law.
Second, the General Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence. When assessing whether the excess profit exemption was an inherent feature of the Belgian corporate income tax rules, the General Court arbitrarily did not take all relevant factors into account. In particular, it ignored the relevant practice of national authorities and courts without providing any objective reason or justification.
Third, the General Court erred in law when finding that the contested decision had shown the existence of an advantage.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law and distorted the evidence when assessing the excess profit exemption scheme’s selectivity.
____________
1 OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.