# C_2016156EN.01003101.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/31

---

Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission

Spain and Others

Commission

(Case C-128/16 P)

(2016/C 156/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, S.A.U. and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, S.A.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13;

| — | remit the case to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the General Court;

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

—

order the applicants to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notions of ‘undertakings’ and ‘selective advantage’; in its interpretation and application of the duty to state reasons; and in its distortion of the contested decision as regards selectivity.






  — | The General Court erred in law and distorted the decision in misinterpreting the selective nature of a tax advantage reserved for undertakings which pursue a particular economic activity and which were set up by the economic interest grouping (EIG) and their partners; and in incorrectly characterising the reasons given. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notions of ‘undertakings’ and ‘selective advantage’; in its interpretation and application of the duty to state reasons; and in its distortion of the contested decision as regards selectivity.

—

The General Court erred in law and distorted the decision in misinterpreting the selective nature of a tax advantage reserved for undertakings which pursue a particular economic activity and which were set up by the economic interest grouping (EIG) and their partners; and in incorrectly characterising the reasons given.

| — | The General Court erred in law in its analysis of the selective advantage resulting from discretionary power on the part of the national tax authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its analysis of the selective advantage resulting from discretionary power on the part of the national tax authorities.

| — | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the notion of ‘selectivity’ by excluding selectivity with regard to a measure reserved for taxable persons making certain investments. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the notion of ‘selectivity’ by excluding selectivity with regard to a measure reserved for taxable persons making certain investments.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law and distorted the contested decision in interpreting and applying the duty to state reasons in relation to effects on competition and effects on trade in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law and distorted the contested decision in interpreting and applying the duty to state reasons in relation to effects on competition and effects on trade in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.

---