# C_2015127EN.01001501.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/15

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2015 by Netherlands Maritime Technology Association, formerly Scheepsbouw Nederland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-140/13: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission

(Case C-100/15 P)

(2015/C 127/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association, formerly Scheepsbouw Nederland (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, G. Forwood, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected the Appellant’s application for annulment of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected the Appellant’s application for annulment of the Decision;

| — | Annul the contested Decision, or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested Decision, or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and

| — | In any event, award the Appellant its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, award the Appellant its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant argues that the General Court erred in law when considering the sufficiency and completeness of the Commission’s preliminary examination, specifically:

| — | In failing to properly consider all the arguments relied upon by the Appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

In failing to properly consider all the arguments relied upon by the Appellant at first instance;

| — | In committing a manifest error of appreciation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In committing a manifest error of appreciation; and

| — | In giving insufficient and contradictory reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

—

In giving insufficient and contradictory reasoning.

The main arguments can be summarized as follows:

| — | Regarding the first ground, the General Court misread the Appellant’s arguments with respect to the complex structure of the New STL Scheme, its self-implementation and selectivity and thus did not consider whether the Decision properly analysed the functioning of the scheme as a whole, and in conjunction with other provisions of tax and corporate law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Regarding the first ground, the General Court misread the Appellant’s arguments with respect to the complex structure of the New STL Scheme, its self-implementation and selectivity and thus did not consider whether the Decision properly analysed the functioning of the scheme as a whole, and in conjunction with other provisions of tax and corporate law.

| — | Regarding the second ground, the General Court committed a manifest error in its reading of the Decision, leading it to conclude, wrongly, that the Decision sufficiently assessed the scope of beneficiaries of the New STL Scheme. |
| --- | --- |

—

Regarding the second ground, the General Court committed a manifest error in its reading of the Decision, leading it to conclude, wrongly, that the Decision sufficiently assessed the scope of beneficiaries of the New STL Scheme.

| — | Regarding the third ground, the General Court failed to provide sufficient and coherent reasoning as to why the contested decision was right not to consider EIGs as potential beneficiaries of the New STL Scheme, or to define a reference framework to assess the effects of the measure. Furthermore, the General Court failed to provide sufficient reasoning explaining why the contested decision sufficiently explained how the New STL Scheme was an inherent part of the general system. |
| --- | --- |

—

Regarding the third ground, the General Court failed to provide sufficient and coherent reasoning as to why the contested decision was right not to consider EIGs as potential beneficiaries of the New STL Scheme, or to define a reference framework to assess the effects of the measure. Furthermore, the General Court failed to provide sufficient reasoning explaining why the contested decision sufficiently explained how the New STL Scheme was an inherent part of the general system.

---