# C_2020045EN.01003001.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/30

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in joined cases T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission

(Case C-885/19 P)

(2020/C 45/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (represented by: J. Rodriguez, abogado, N. de Boynes, avocat, M. Engel, Rechtsanwalt, G. Maisto, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2019 in joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2019 in joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15;

| — | annul the contested decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 (1) in accordance with Article 263(4) TFEU; or in the alternative, if and to the extent that the Court should be unable to make a final decision, refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 (1) in accordance with Article 263(4) TFEU; or in the alternative, if and to the extent that the Court should be unable to make a final decision, refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | order the Commission to pay Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe’s costs pursuant to Articles 138(1), 184(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and to pay Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe’s costs at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe’s costs pursuant to Articles 138(1), 184(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and to pay Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe’s costs at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law: the General Court’s analysis of whether Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe derived an advantage from the advance pricing agreement (‘APA’) breaches Article 107 TFEU by virtue of (i) the General Court’s misapplication of the legal test of whether the APA endorsed a methodology that exceeded the applicable margin of appreciation, and (ii) the General Court’s failure to properly define the relevant undertaking that was the beneficiary of the APA.

Second plea in law: the GCEU’s analysis of the legal basis for the Commission’s arm’s length principle (‘ALP’) is inadequate and contradictory and breaches the general principle to give adequate and coherent reasons.

Third plea in law: the GCEU breached the fundamental principle of legal certainty by (i) endorsing the Commission’s ill-defined ALP without addressing its scope or contents, and by (ii) upholding the application of the selectivity presumption to the APA.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat (notified under document C(2015) 7152) (OJ 2016, L 351, p. 1).

---