Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU, Article 107 -P1 : paragraphs 53 - 121
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/69 : paragraphs 97, 99, 106, 115, 116
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -57/86 : paragraphs 97, 99, 106, 115, 116
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -156/98 : paragraphs 27, 35, 41, 89, 90
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -156/98 -N22 : paragraph 50
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/99 : paragraphs 25, 33, 42, 44, 82-84
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -409/00 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -409/00 -N48 : paragraph 80
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/00 : paragraphs 38, 97, 99, 103, 106, 115, 116
• General Court - Judgment T -92/00 : paragraph 44
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -159/01 -N42 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -159/01 -N43 : paragraph 58
• General Court - Judgment T -227/01 : paragraph 44
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N47 : paragraph 88
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N48 : paragraph 88
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N49 : paragraph 88
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N50 : paragraph 88
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/04 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 -N49 : paragraph 57
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 -N64 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 -N65 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -169/08 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/08 -N50 : paragraph 80
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 : paragraphs 30, 39, 45, 48, 71 - 73, 76
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N101 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N73 : paragraph 84
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N75 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -417/10 : paragraphs 31, 40, 85
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -417/10 -N39 : paragraph 84
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -417/10 -N40 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -417/10 -N42 : paragraph 59
• General Court - Judgment T -219/10 : paragraph 1
• General Court - Judgment T -399/11 : paragraphs 1, 2
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/12 -N18 : paragraph 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/13 -N53 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/13 -N54 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/13 -N55 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -15/14 -N61 : paragraph 60
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -39/14 -N24 : paragraph 53
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -270/15 -N49 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -270/15 -N50 : paragraph 55

Operative part

• Annuls : General Court - Judgment T -219/10
• Annuls : General Court - Judgment T -399/11

Opinion

• TFEU, Article 107 : point 9
  
• TFEU, Article 107 -P1 : points 4, 6, 10, 72, 78, 79, 82 - 84, 94, 102, 128
  
• Decision 2002/581 : point 81
  
• Decision 2011/5 -A01P1 : points 1, 3, 140
  
• Decision 2011/5 -A04 : points 1, 3, 140
  
• Decision 2011/282 -A01P1 : points 2, 3, 140
  
• Decision 2011/282 -A04 : points 2, 3, 140
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/69 : points 127, 128
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/69 -N20 : points 11, 32, 113, 115, 118, 119, 126, 130, 135, 137 - 139
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/73 -N27 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -57/86 : points 127, 128
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -57/86 -N8 : points 11, 32, 113, 115, 118, 119, 126, 130, 135, 137 - 139
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -75/97 -N33 : point 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -156/98 : points 44, 55, 61, 97-99
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -156/98 -N22 : points 26, 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/99 : points 25, 43, 52, 62, 63, 105, 106
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/99 -N35 : points 80, 107, 108
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/99 -N36 : points 107, 108
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/99 -N42 : point 75
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -409/00 -N48 : points 67, 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -409/00 -N49 : point 67
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/00 : points 125, 129
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/00 -N120 : points 11, 32, 33, 58, 86, 113, 115, 118, 119, 126, 130, 135, 137 - 139
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/00 -N96 : point 129
  
• General Court - Judgment T -92/00 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/01 -N37 : point 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/01 -N38 : point 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/01 -N39 : point 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -159/01 -N51 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -227/01 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/02 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/02 -N100 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/02 -N97 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/02 -N98 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/02 -N99 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -88/03 -N56 : point 73
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N44 : point 67
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N49 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -148/04 -N50 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/04 -N136 : point 67
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -341/06 -N121 : point 4
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/06 -N82 : point 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -369/07 -N119 : point 137
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 : point 75
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 -N53 : point 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 -N63 : point 75
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/08 -N64 : point 75
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -169/08 -N63 : point 67
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/08 : point 96
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 : points 47, 59, 64, 73, 100, 101, 104
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N101 : points 80, 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N102 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N103 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N104 : points 66, 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N87 : points 28, 83, 94
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N88 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N92 : point 94
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/09 -N93 : points 83, 94
  
• General Court - Judgment T -379/09 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -417/10 : points 48, 60, 93
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -417/10 -N42 : point 75
  
• General Court - Judgment T -219/10 : points 1 - 140
  
• General Court - Judgment T -399/11 : point 2
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/13 -N53 : point 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/13 -N54 : point 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/13 -N55 : point 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -690/13 -N17 : point 4
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -15/14 : point 80
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -66/14 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -15/14 : point 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/14 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/14 -N83 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/14 -N84 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/14 -N85 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -270/15 : point 80
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 19/01/2015

Date of the Opinion

• 28/07/2016

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

21/12/2016

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 53 from 20.02.2017, p.4

Application: OJ C 81 from 09.03.2015, p.10

Name of the parties

Commission v World Duty Free Group

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Thomas, Sébastian: Sélectivité et discrimination : quelques réflexions autour des arrêts de la Cour du 21 décembre 2016 dans les affaires World Duty Free Group et Hansestadt Lübeck, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2017 nº 58 p.37-44 (FR)
2. Idot, Laurence: Notion d'aide et sélectivité des mesures (I), Europe 2017 Février Comm. nº 2 p.30-31 (FR)
3. Cuoco, Antonio ; Martinico, Giuseppe: Il requisito della selettività degli aiuti di Stato in una recente sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea, Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario 2017 p.217-230 (IT)
4. Egger, Alexander: Rechtsmittel — Staatliche Beihilfen — Art 107 Abs 1 AEUV — Steuerregelung — Körperschaftsteuer — Abzug — Abschreibung des Geschafts- und Firmenwerts, der sich aus dem Erwerb einer Beteiligung in Hohe von mindestens 5 % durch in Spanien steuerlich ansässige Unternehmen an auerha1b dieses Mitgliedstaats steuerlich ansässigen Unternehmen ergibt — Begriff ,staatliche Beihilfe’ — Voraussetzung der Selektivitat, Zeitschrift für Beihilfenrecht 2017 p.30-31 (DE)
5. Nicolaides, Phedon: ARTICLES ∙ Excessive Widening of the Concept of Selectivity, European State Aid Law Quarterly 2017 p.62 - 72 (EN)
6. Spangler, Simon: Beihilferecht: Selektivität von Steuerregeln beim Erwerb von Beteiligungen an ausländischen Unternehmen, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.224-225 (DE)
7. Derenne, Jacques: Commission v World Duty Free Group a.o.: Selectivity in (Fiscal) State Aid, quo vadis Curia?, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2017 Vol. 8 nº 5 p.311–313 (EN)
8. Giraud, Adrien ; Petit, Sylvain: Bury Them Deep: The Court of Justice Annuls the Autogrill and Banco Santander Judgments of the General Court, European State Aid Law Quarterly 2017 p.310 - 315 (EN)
9. Prats, Alfredo Garcia ; Haslehner, Werner ; Heydt, Volker ; Kemmeren, Eric ; Kofler, Georg: CFE - Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2017 on the ECJ Decision of 21 December 2016 in World Duty Free Group and Others (Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P), Concerning the Requirements of Selective Aid in the Sense of Article 107 of the TFEU, European Taxation 2017 nº 8 p.354-357 (EN)
10. Van Midden, G.J.: World Duty Free Group: de complexe selectiviteitseis bij fiscale steunmaatregelen, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2017 p. 204-210 (NL)
11. Lombert, C.A.M.: World Duty Free, het selectiviteitscriterium van art. 107 VWEU: niet ruimer, wel duidelijker, Tijdschrift voor Staatssteun 2017 p.106-111 (NL)
12. Bastidas Venegas, Vladimir: World Duty Free Group och selektivitetskriteriet, Ny Juridik 2017 nº 4 p.65-87 (SV)
13. Galokho, Cheik: La primauté de l'analyse juridique de la sélectivité de l'aide en présence d'un régime fiscal dérogatoire, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2017 n°4 p.723-737 (FR)
14. Maitrot de la Motte, Alexandre: XIII. Aides d’État - Cour de justice, gde ch., 21 décembre 2016, Commission européenne c/ World Duty Free Group SA, anciennement Autogrill España SA et Commission européenne c/ Banco Santander SA et Santusa Holding SL, aff. C-20/15 P et C-21/15 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:981, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2016. Décisions et commentaires (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2017, p. 516-528 (FR)
15. Ismer, Roland ; Piotrowski, Sophia: Selectivity in Corporate Tax Matters After World Duty Free: A Tale of Two Consistencies Revisited, Intertax 2018 p.156–166 (EN)
16. Eisendle, David: Tätigkeit an den Unions­gerichten, Jahrbuch 18, Beihilferecht (NWV Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Wien - Graz 2018) 2018 p.225-227 (DE)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

• Competition
  
• - State aid
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Actions for annulment
  
• Appeals : application granted
  

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Prechal

Advocate General

Wathelet

Language(s) of the Case

• Spanish
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French