# C_2016314EN.01003301.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/33 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission

(Case T-369/16)

(2016/C 314/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Luciad (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: D. Arts, P. Smet and I. Panis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium to be admissible and well founded; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium; and |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589( 1 ) and Article 107(1) TFEU.
—
The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure. | — | The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as there is no measure that distorts or threatens to distort competition.
—
The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition. —
The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition. | — | The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition. | — | The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition. | | | | |
| — | The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition. | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not adversely affect trade between Member States. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not confer any selective advantage.
—
The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand. | — | The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand. | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---