62015TJ0256_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2023 –Telefónica and Iberdrola v Commission
(Cases T‑256/15 and T‑260/15) (
1
)
(State Aid – Aid scheme implemented by Spain – Deduction of corporation tax allowing companies which are tax resident in Spain to amortise goodwill resulting from the indirect acquisition of shareholdings in non-resident companies through the direct acquisition of shareholdings in non-resident holding companies – Decision declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of the aid paid out – Decision 2011/5/EC – Decision 2011/282/EU – Scope – Withdrawal of an act – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations)
1.
Aid granted by a Member State – Decision of the Commission finding aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery – Aid scheme consisting of tax amortisation of financial goodwill for acquisitions of shareholdings in non-resident companies – Scope of the decision of the Commission – National administrative practice limiting the tax amortisation scheme to cases of direct acquisitions of shareholdings – Decision of the Commission covering both direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – New administrative practice adopted by the national authorities – Irrelevant
(Art. 107(1) TFEU)
(see paragraphs 48-74)
2.
Aid granted by a Member State – Decision of the Commission finding aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery – Aid scheme consisting of tax amortisation of financial goodwill for acquisitions of shareholdings in non-resident companies – Decision of the Commission covering both direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – Decision finding the existence of a legitimate expectation entertained by the beneficiaries in relation to certain direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – Adoption of a new decision concerning only indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – New decision stating that no legitimate expectation exists – Whether permissible in the event of transmission of inaccurate and decisive information by the national authorities – Requirement not met
(Art. 107(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 9 and 13(3))
(see paragraphs 76-82)
3.
Aid granted by a Member State – Decision of the Commission finding aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery – Aid scheme consisting of tax amortisation of financial goodwill for acquisitions of shareholdings in non-resident companies – Decision of the Commission covering both direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – Decision finding the existence of a legitimate expectation entertained by the beneficiaries in relation to certain direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – Adoption of a new decision concerning only indirect acquisitions of shareholdings – New decision stating that no legitimate expectation exists – Breach of the principle of legal certainty – Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
(Art. 107(1) TFEU)
(see paragraphs 83-89)
4.
Aid granted by a Member State – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 108 TFEU – Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients – None save in exceptional circumstances – Legitimate expectations arising from specific, unconditional and consistent assurances provided by the Commission – National administrative practice implementing the aid scheme contrary to the Commission’s declarations – Beneficiaries’ awareness of that practice – Irrelevant
(Arts 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU)
(see paragraphs 94-118)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Joins Cases T‑256/15 and T‑260/15 for the purposes of the judgment;
2.
Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2015/314 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain – Scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions;
3.
Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief in Case T‑260/15 R.
(
1
)	OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.