Short Reads

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 25

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon

01.11.2017 EU law

On 4 October 2017, after a long investigation, the European Commission held that a tax ruling between Amazon and Luxembourg constituted illegal State aid [see our November 2015 Newsletter]. The Commission ordered Luxembourg to recover this aid from Amazon, which is estimated to be around EUR 250 million.

The Commission explained that the tax ruling in question allowed Amazon to pay substantially less tax than other companies. More specifically, the Commission stated that the tax ruling enabled Amazon to shift the vast majority of its profits from an Amazon group company (Amazon EU) to another company (Amazon Europe Holding Technologies). Amazon EU is subject to taxation in Luxembourg while Amazon Europe Holding Technologies is not. As a limited partnership, only the partners of Amazon Europe Holding Technologies are subject to taxation. These partners are located in the US and have so far deferred their tax liability.

Amazon EU operates Amazon's retail business in Europe. Amazon Europe Holding Technologies does not have any employees or offices, nor does it carry out any business activities. The holding company is an intermediary between Amazon EU and Amazon in the US. It has intellectual property rights and grants its exclusive use of these rights to Amazon EU. Under the tax ruling, Amazon EU paid royalties to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies, as a result of which Amazon EU's taxable profits were substantially reduced.

The Commission decided that the royalty payments did not reflect the economic reality. According to the Commission, the holding company did not perform any activities to justify the level of the royalties received since it was not involved in the management, development or use of its intellectual property. The royalty payment was therefore contrary to the so-called "arm's length principle" under which payments between two companies in the same group should be in line with arrangements that take place under commercial conditions between independent businesses.

The non-confidential version of the decision has not been published yet. Therefore, the exact methodology used to calculate the illegal advantage enjoyed by Amazon is not fully known. The tax authorities in Luxembourg will use this method to determine the exact amount of the State aid that has to be recovered from Amazon.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more