Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Case T-637/16, ZF CV Systems Europe v Commission
(Case C-736/23 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe (represented by: E. Righini, avvocato, S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt and K. Beikos-Paschalis, dikigoros)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment under appeal;
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 ;
order the Commission to bear its costs and pay the appellant’s costs for the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law:
First plea in law, alleging errors of law in relation to the standard of review applied by the judgement under appeal. By not limiting itself to a plausibility check for the identification of a manifest derogation from the reference framework, the judgment under appeal fails to apply the correct standard of review for the assessment of tax measures under Article 107 TFEU.
Second plea in law, alleging errors of law in the identification of the reference framework. In particular, the judgment under appeal fails to take into account elements forming part of the reference system, errs in its interpretation of Article 185(2)(b) of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992, distorts the content of that provision and fails to draw the correct conclusions from the identified objective pursued by that provision.
Third plea in law, alleging errors of law in the judgment under appeal’s assessment of the selectivity of the scheme and failure to state reasons in relation to its findings that it differentiates between economic operators who are in a comparable situation.
____________
1 OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.