# C_2022441EN.01000801.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/8

---

Appeal brought on 17 August 2022 by ITV plc against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2022 in Joined Cases T-363/19 and T-456/19, United Kingdom and ITV v Commission

(Case C-556/22 P)

(2022/C 441/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ITV plc (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd, London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal;

| — | annul points 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul points 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 of the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 of the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption (1); and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the application before this Court and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the application before this Court and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

First, the General Court erred in law and/or made a manifest error of assessment or appraisal in concluding that the Commission had not erred in its selection of the reference system for the analysis of whether or not the State aid provisions found in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU had been breached.

Second, the General Court erred in law and/or made a manifest error of assessment or appraisal in concluding that the relevant exemptions operated as a derogation from a general system of taxation comprising the CFC (controlled foreign companies) rules and thereby conferred a selective advantage on only some of the corporate taxpayers who were otherwise in a comparable position.

Third, the General Court erred in law and/or made a manifest error of assessment or appraisal in concluding that the exemptions, if they did confer a selective advantage (quod non), could not be justified on the basis of administrative practicability.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law in its failure properly to consider and apply the ruling of the judgment of 12 September 2006, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, C-196/04, EU:C:2006:544, whether when considering the issue of reference framework, selective advantage or considering the question of whether or not the exemptions (or any of them) might be justified in order to protect the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU. Further or alternatively, the General Court failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusions on this issue.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 216, p. 1.

---