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

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring