umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

General Court sends Commission back to drawing board in Belgian tax rulings case

General Court sends Commission back to drawing board in Belgian tax r

General Court sends Commission back to drawing board in Belgian tax rulings case

07.03.2019 BE law

The European Commission has suffered its first court defeat in a tax rulings case. The General Court recently overturned an order to recover over EUR 700 million worth of tax breaks from 55 beneficiaries, because the Commission had wrongly qualified Belgian's excess profit exemption system as an "aid scheme".

The ruling is a welcome clarification of what can be considered an "aid scheme" under the EU State aid rules. Time will tell which steps the Commission will take next.

Since 2005, Belgian entities forming part of a multinational group of companies could, after having demonstrated new investments in Belgium, in the creation of jobs and/or the centralization or increase of activities in Belgium, obtain an advance ruling from the tax authorities, exempting them from corporate income tax on the so-called "excess profits" they made from being part of a multinational group.

On 11 January 2016, the European Commission concluded that such a system constitutes an illegal state aid scheme, and it ordered Belgium to recover around EUR 700 million from the 55 beneficiaries listed in Annex 1 of its decision.

On 14 February 2019, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision, considering that the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption system constituted an "aid scheme" within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.

The Court first recalled the three conditions for a state aid to be regarded as an "aid scheme": 1) the essential elements of the aid scheme must emerge from the provisions identified by the Commission as the basis for the scheme, 2) there is no margin of appreciation for the national authorities regarding these essential elements, meaning that no implementing measures are required, and 3) the basis acts must define the beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner.

Then the Court considered that none of these conditions was fulfilled because: 1) some essential elements, such as the two-step methodology for calculating the excess profit or the requirement of investments, creation of jobs and centralization or increase of activities in Belgium did not appear in the basis acts, 2) when issuing an advance ruling, the tax authorities carried out a qualitative and quantitative case-by-case assessment in the light of documents provided by the entity concerned, which means that they enjoyed a genuine margin of appreciation, and 3) further implementing measures had to be taken in order to define which companies fulfilled the required conditions and could therefore obtain an advance ruling.

In the absence of an "aid scheme", the Commission should have therefore carried out an individual analysis of each of the alleged aid granted to the 55 beneficiaries. If the Commission decides to re-open the case, this is what it will have to do.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of March 2019. Another article in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more