Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2023:565
Date: 2023-09-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber, Extended Composition
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Judgment delivered after back reference
Origin: Belgium

Action brought on 25 May 2016 – Magnetrol International v Commission (Case T-263/16) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Magnetrol International (Zele, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: 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 the Kingdom of Belgium; in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision; in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an “excess profit ruling” as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision 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 alleges the existence of an aid scheme. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selected measure. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid. ____________