# C_2010246EN.01001602.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/16

---

Appeal brought on 21 May 2010 by Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 18 March 2010 in Case T-94/08 Centre de Coordination Carrefour v Commission

(Case C-254/10 P)

()

2010/C 246/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC (represented by: X. Clarebout, C. Docclo and M. Pittie, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that the appeal is admissible and well-founded, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the appeal is admissible and well-founded,

| — | consequently, set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | consequently:






  — | either refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently:

—

either refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

| — | or give final judgment by granting the form of order sought by Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC at first instance and annulling the contested decision; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

or give final judgment by granting the form of order sought by Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC at first instance and annulling the contested decision; (1)

1

| — | order the European Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court breached its obligation to state reasons in finding, first, that the appellant had no legal interest in bringing proceedings against the contested decision due to the lack of a valid authorisation under Belgian law and, second, that the admissibility of the action did not depend on its having valid authorisation. Such a statement of reasons is contradictory, since the General Court was not entitled to find at the same time that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings due to the lack of valid authorisation and that such authorisation was not material in assessing whether the action was admissible.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the facts submitted to it, by misconstruing the broad logic of the Belgian legislation on coordination centres, misinterpreting Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 concerning the establishment of coordination centres, (2) distorting its scope, and failing to apply the hierarchy of sources of Belgian law. The royal decree at issue is a special powers decree which, under Belgian law, has the same legal force as a law and is still applicable to the appellant, which therefore benefits from an authorisation for a period of 10 years.

2

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, in so far as the General Court held that if it annulled the contested decision, the effect would be to prohibit renewal of the authorisations of the coordination centres as from the date of notification of the contested decision. However, the judgment of the Court of Justice annulled the contested decision in that case precisely because of the lack of adequate transitional periods for the coordination centres whose applications for renewal of authorisation were pending on the date of notification of the contested decision or whose authorisations expired on that date or shortly thereafter.

res judicata

Belgium and Forum 187

Commission

By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court misconstrued the notion of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’, in that it held that the action brought by the appellant was not likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for it, on the ground that it is not certain that the Belgian authorities would maintain the status of the appellant’s coordination centre beyond 31 December 2005 if the contested decision were annulled. First, the Belgian authorities did not have any discretion in the present case, since the authorisation had to be granted for 10 years if the criteria laid down by Royal Decree No 187 were satisfied. Second, the General Court itself observed, in the judgment under appeal, that the Belgian authorities had not ruled out allowing the appellant to benefit from the scheme at issue after 31 December 2005 and had decided not to apply any penalty to it as long as no definitive ruling has been given on its action.

By its fifth and final ground of appeal, the appellant submits, lastly, that the General Court erred in law by finding that a transitional measure may not take effect retroactively. It is not unusual for a transitional period to start to run from an earlier point, in particular in tax matters.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7).

1

(2)  Moniteur belge, 13 January 1983, p. 502.

2

Moniteur belge

---