# C_2016350EN.01002002.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/20

---

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Victaulic Europe v Commission

(Case T-373/16)

(2016/C 350/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Victaulic Europe (Nazareth, Belgium) (represented by: C. Fairpo, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as the decision incorrectly classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, does not properly identify the alleged state aid measure, incorrectly considers the excess profit ruling as incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE and incorrectly requires Belgium to recover undefinable sums from recipients of rulings under the excess profit ruling system; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as the decision incorrectly classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, does not properly identify the alleged state aid measure, incorrectly considers the excess profit ruling as incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE and incorrectly requires Belgium to recover undefinable sums from recipients of rulings under the excess profit ruling system; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by incorrectly classifying the excess profit ruling system as an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by incorrectly classifying the excess profit ruling system as an aid scheme.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by failing to consider whether the alleged aid awards actually provided an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by failing to consider whether the alleged aid awards actually provided an advantage.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in assessing the excess profit ruling system as selective. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in assessing the excess profit ruling system as selective.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the obligation on Belgium to recover the alleged aid awards infringes the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the obligation on Belgium to recover the alleged aid awards infringes the principle of legal certainty.

---