Action brought on 22 March 2016 – Belgium v Commission
(Case T-131/16)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, acting as agents, assisted by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;
annul Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as it does not properly identify the state aid measure, classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, and considers it incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;
in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision in so far as they consider the excess profit ruling system as state aid incompatible with the internal market and order the recovery of the alleged state aid from the corporate groups to which the recipients belong in breach of general principles of EU law;
order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6) TFEU, Article 5(1) and (2) TEU by using the state aid rules to unilaterally define the tax jurisdiction of the Belgian State.
Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and in its classification as an aid scheme that does not require any further implementing measures within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and Article 107 TFEU.
Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU in considering that the excess profit ruling system constitutes a state aid measure. The Commission has not evidenced the state resources involved, has not identified the existence of an advantage and has erroneously assessed selectivity and distortion of competition.
Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid not only as the Belgian entities subject to tax in Belgium but also the multinational groups to which they belong.
Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the general principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 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 Union1 as recovery may be requested from the multinational groups to which the Belgian entities that have received a ruling belong.
____________1 Council Regulation (EU) No 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).