# C_2014223EN.01002001.xml

| 14.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/20

---

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-258/14)

2014/C 223/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: L. Delvaux, Agent, and P.-E. Partsch, A. Steichen, D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the Commission decision of 24 March 2014 requiring Luxembourg to provide information relating to the practice of issuing anticipatory decisions in tax matters; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 24 March 2014 requiring Luxembourg to provide information relating to the practice of issuing anticipatory decisions in tax matters;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1986 final by which it directed the applicant, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) to provide a complete list of anticipatory decisions made in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in favour of Luxembourg undertakings belonging to a group or legal structure involving one or more undertakings located outside the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

1

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Regulation No 659/1999 and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the Commission does not have the minimum amount of information required to justify the requests for information set out in the injunction, since its investigative powers are conditional upon its being in prior possession of sufficient factual and objective information, capable of giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The applicant argues that the Commission is making a ‘speculative request for information’ which is incompatible with the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Regulation No 659/1999 and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the Commission does not have the minimum amount of information required to justify the requests for information set out in the injunction, since its investigative powers are conditional upon its being in prior possession of sufficient factual and objective information, capable of giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The applicant argues that the Commission is making a ‘speculative request for information’ which is incompatible with the rights of the defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as (i) the information that the Commission already has in its possession is unrelated to the nature and scope of the information requested from the applicant and (ii) the injunction to provide information goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of the Commission’s objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as (i) the information that the Commission already has in its possession is unrelated to the nature and scope of the information requested from the applicant and (ii) the injunction to provide information goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of the Commission’s objectives.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to give sufficient reasons, as the Commission has neither explained the reasons for the contested injunction nor clearly indicated the presumed facts that it intends to investigate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to give sufficient reasons, as the Commission has neither explained the reasons for the contested injunction nor clearly indicated the presumed facts that it intends to investigate.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 TEU and failure to respect the competence of the Member States in matters of direct taxation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 TEU and failure to respect the competence of the Member States in matters of direct taxation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

1

---