2008/283/EC: Commission Decision of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (notified under document number C(2007) 5416) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2007-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, aid system, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax exemption

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/7

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory)

II

DECISIONS

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 13 November 2007

amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination
centres established in Belgium

(notified under document number C(2007) 5416)

(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/283/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,
and in particular
Article 88(2) thereof,

establishing the European
subparagraph of
the

first

resentatives of the Member States' Governments meeting
within the Council of 1 December 1997 (3),
the
Commission re-examined the scheme in the light of the
applicable state aid rules of the Treaty and its notice on
the application of the State aid rules to measures relating
to direct business taxation (4).

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

(3)

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to
their comments,

Whereas:

I. PROCEDURE (2)

(4)

(1)

(2)

The legal basis for the scheme for coordination centres is
Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982. By
the
Decisions of 2 May 1984 and 9 March 1987,
Commission had authorised the scheme since,
in its
view,
it did not give rise to any objections as regards
the applicable State aid rules of the Treaty.

As it had undertaken to do so under the code of conduct
for business taxation (hereinafter the code of conduct),
adopted by resolution of the Council and of the rep-

On 11 July 2001 the Commission proposed appropriate
measures designed to remove the effects of the scheme
for all
the undertakings concerned by 31 December
2005 at the latest. Belgium did not accept these appro-
priate measures since, in its view, it was required by law
to comply until their expiry with the ten-year author-
isations,
after
31 December 2005.

of which

ceased

apply

some

to

the Treaty

On 27 February 2002, in the absence of any acceptance
of the appropriate measures, the Commission initiated
investigation procedure (5) provided for in
the formal
Article 88(2) of
in accordance with
Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999
of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC
Treaty (6). On that occasion, the Commission called on
interested third parties
comments,
notably on the circumstances making it possible to
establish the existence of a legitimate expectations on
the part of the interested parties.

to submit

their

(1) OJ C 110, 16.5.2007, p. 20.
(2) For details of
Decision,
initiating the procecdure and Decision 2003/757/EC.

that preceded the present
see the Commission Decision of 27 February 2002

the procedural

steps

(3) OJ C 2, 6.1.1998, p. 2.
(4) OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3.
(5) OJ C 147, 20.6.2002, p. 2.
(6) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

L 90/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2008

(5)

(6)

(7)

implemented by Belgium for

investigation
The Commission terminated the formal
procedure by a negative final decision, Commission
Decision 2003/757/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid
scheme
coordination
centres established in Belgium (7), which was notified to
Belgium on 18 February 2003. Since existing aid was
involved, the Commission did not seek recovery of aid
already granted. However, as a transitional measure,
Decision 2003/757/EC allowed the coordination centres
to enjoy the benefits of the scheme until expiry of their
current authorisation and until 31 December 2010 at the
latest. Belgium and the association Forum 187, which
represents the coordination centres, appealed to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities with a
view to having all or part of that Decision suspended
or annulled (Cases C-182/03 and T-140/03, which
became C-217/03).

(9)

(10)

By order of 26 June 2003 (8), the President of the Court
suspended the operation of Decision 2003/757/EC
‘inasmuch as it prohibits the Kingdom of Belgium from
renewing coordination centre authorisations effective at
the date of notification of the decision.’ He went on to
state that ‘the effects of renewals made pursuant to this
order
shall not extend beyond the day on which
judgment is given in the main action.’

At Belgium's request, Council Decision 2003/531/EC of
16 July 2003 on the granting of aid by the Belgian
Government to certain coordination centres established
in Belgium (9) stated, in accordance with the third sub-
paragraph of Article 88(2) of the Treaty that ‘the aid
which Belgium plans to grant
in the period up to
31 December 2005 to undertakings authorised as at
31 December 2000 to act as coordination centres
under Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982,
and whose authorisations expire between 17 February
2003 and 31 December 2005,
shall be considered
compatible with the common market’. The effect of the
aid in question was to maintain the effects of the coor-
dination centre scheme for the above mentioned under-
takings. The Commission brought an action against
Decision
(Case
C-399/03).

2003/531/EC

before

Court

the

By its judgment of 22 June 2006 (10), the Court annulled
in part the Commission decision ‘insofar as it does not
lay down transitional measures for those coordination
centres with an application for renewal of their authori-
sation pending on the date on which the contested
decision was notified or with an authorisation which
expired at the same time or shortly after the notification
of the decision.’ That same day it also annulled Decision
2003/531/EC (11).

By letter of 4 July 2006 (12),
the Commission asked
Belgium to provide it with certain information so that
it could decide on the proper follow-up action to be
taken following the judgment by the Court of 22 June
2006 in Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03. This infor-
mation concerned the way in which Belgium had im-
plemented Decision 2003/757/EC, as suspended in part
by the order of 26 June 2003. Belgium was given 20
working days, i.e. in principle until 2 August 2006, to
provide the information requested.

(11) On 23 August 2006 as it had not received a reply, the
Commission sent Belgium a reminder (13). Belgium was
given a further period of 10 working days,
in
principle until 7 September 2006, to provide the infor-
mation requested.

i.e.

(12) On 13 September 2006 an informal e-mail

including
copies of the two aforementioned letters was sent to
Belgium. By letter of 14 September 2006, which
mentioned the said e-mail and the attached letters,
Belgium stated that it had never received the letters. By
letter of 29 September 2006, the Commission called on
Belgium to provide the information initially requested on
4 July and to inform it of its intentions regarding the
coordination centres. A technical meeting was also
reply, dated 12 October
proposed. Since Belgium's
2006,
information
contain any of
did not
requested, the Commission, by letter of 10 November
2006, once again recalled the importance of the infor-
mation requested and insisted that Belgium provide the
desired replies by 22 November 2006 at the latest. A
letter from Belgium dated 17 November 2006 still did
not provide any answer as to substance.

the

(8)

On 16 July 2003 the Commission responded to Decision
2003/531/EC in a press release, stating ‘The reasoning
and indeed the wording of the President's order suggest
that the aid granted on this basis will not be recoverable
from the centres even if the Court should ultimately
dismiss Belgium's action on the substance.’ (IP/03/1032).

the information
(13) On 16 January 2007 Belgium sent
requested by the Commission.
It provided further
details by letters of 8 and 16 February 2007. Three
meetings also took place on 5 and 15 February and
5 March 2007 between the Commission and Belgium.

(7) OJ L 282, 30.10.2003, p. 25, as corrected by OJ L 285, 1.11.2003,

(10) Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgique et Forum 187 v

p. 52.

(8) Joined Cases C-182/03 R and C-217/03 R Belgique et Forum 187 v

Commission [2003] ECR I-6887.

(9) OJ L 184, 23.7.2003, p. 17.

Commission [2006] ECR I-5479.

(11) Case C-399/03 Commission v Council [2006] ECR I-5629.
(12) Registered under reference No D/55614.
(13) Registered under reference No D/57226.

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/9

By letter of 21 March 2007, the Commission informed
Belgium of its decision to extend the procedure initiated
on 27 February 2002 in respect of this aid, in accordance
with Article 88(2) of the Treaty.

with Article 88(3) of the Treaty but its entry into force
has been suspended and is conditional on confirmation
by the Commission that it has no objections.

The Commission decision to extend the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Union (14).
The Commission called on interested parties to submit
their comments on the appropriate transitional measures
that it should have envisaged pursuant to the Court's
judgment.

The Commission received comments in this connection
from Forum 187 (15) and three coordination centres. It
forwarded them to Belgium, giving it the possibility to
comment on them, and received its comments by letters
dated 19 and 30 July 2007.

(19) Of the 243 coordination centres that existed in 2002,
173 are still operational in 2007. Of these, 27 have been
granted an authorisation that is valid until 31 December
2010 in accordance with Decision 2003/757/EC. The
authorisations for the other 136 coordination centres
expire before 31 December 2010 and it
these
centres, therefore, that are concerned by the possibility
of extension afforded by the Law. It would seem that an
unspecified number of coordination centres that have
since ceased operations could also benefit
from the
extension provided for by the Law of 27 December
2006.

is

III. PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE FORMAL
PROCEDURE

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME

(20)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

group and supplies

The main legal basis for the scheme for coordination
centres is Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982.
A coordination centre is an undertaking that is part of a
multinational
certain ancillary
services (financing, cash management, research and deve-
lopment, etc.) solely for other undertakings in the same
group. Since 1983, under a special scheme approved by
the Commission, these undertakings qualified in Belgium
for a substantially reduced corporate tax base and for
various
capital
(registration
injections, property tax, withholding tax). Eligibility for
the scheme was conditional on receiving a 10-year auth-
orisation once it had been ascertained that the coordi-
nation centre met the conditions laid down by Royal
Decree No 187. Authorisations were renewable on
expiry
same
conditions (16).

the 10-year

exemptions

period

under

duty

the

on

of

authorisation was

(18) On 27 December 2006 Belgium adopted a law (17) under
which the authorisation for any coordination centre that
so requested could be extended until 31 December 2010,
where necessary with retroactive effect. In addition to the
centres whose
renewed between
17 February 2003 and 31 December 2005, the possi-
bility of extension would also be available to centres
whose authorisation expires between 1 January 2006
and 31 December 2010 and to an unspecified number
of centres whose authorisation would have expired by
the latest but which had not
31 December 2005 at
submitted any renewal request by that date. The Law
has not been notified to the Commission in accordance

(14) See footnote 1.
(15) Forum 187 is the professional federation of coordination centres,
distribution centres, service centres and call centres in Belgium.
(16) For a full description of the scheme, see the decision of 27 February

2002 initiating the procedure.

(17) Law of 27 December 2006 laying down various provisions

(Moniteur belge, 28 December 2006).

Following the order of 26 June 2003 suspending the
effects of the prohibition on the renewal of coordination
centre authorisations that had expired, Belgium was able
to renew the authorisations. The effects of such renewal
the
could not, however, extend beyond the date of
judgment
Justice
delivered its judgment on 22 June 2006.

to substance. The Court of

as

(21) On the basis of

the

information available,

the
Commission expected that Belgium would simply
extend the coordination centre authorisations until the
to the
end of 2005, as had been decided pursuant
code of conduct and as
requested by Belgium on
several occasions. The Commission sought confirmation
from Belgium by letter of 4 July 2006. Belgium
confirmed that it had restricted to 31 December 2005
the renewals granted pursuant to the order of 26 June
2003, except for four centres whose authorisation had
been extended
the
Commission that, on the basis of its interpretation of
the Court's judgment, it intended to extend the authori-
sations for all the coordination centres up to the end of
2010 and to adopt in December 2006 a law permitting
such a general extension beyond 2005, where necessary
with retroactive effect.

also informed

indefinitely.

It

(22) On 21 March 2007, for want of an agreement on the
interpretation placed on the Court's
judgment,
the
it would have to
Commission took the view that
extend the formal investigation procedure so as to give
the judgment and to make
its own interpretation of
public the particulars on which,
it would
have to base itself in order to determine the ‘new’ tran-
sitional period requested by the Court. It also expressed
doubts as to the interpretation of the Court's judgment as
presented by Belgium and as to the latter's intention of
renewing the authorisations
the coordination
centres until the end of 2010.

in its view,

for all

L 90/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2008

IV. COMMENT BY BELGIUM AND INTERESTED THIRD
PARTIES

(23)

Following the extension of
the procedure, comments
were submitted by Belgium, by Forum 187 and by
three coordination centres whose authorisations expired
on 31 December 2003 or 31 December 2004 and were
renewed until 31 December 2005.
It transpires from
these comments
that Belgium and the coordination
centres defend the granting of a transitional period
ending on 31 December 2010 for the following reasons:

— the Court's judgment must be taken to mean that the
invoked by it, means
general principle of equality,
the coordination centres must qualify for
that all
transitional period granted to one of
the longest
them,
the
Commission would create new inequalities and new
competition between coordination
distortions of
them continuing to qualify
centres, with some of
for the scheme and others ceasing to do so before
2010.

i.e. until 31 December 2010.

If not,

— the equality of treatment also implies that Belgian
coordination centres should be granted the same
transitional period as that granted by the Commission
in its decisions relating to other tax schemes, and in
particular
in
Luxembourg (18), exempt companies in Gibraltar (19)
and the free zone of Madeira (20).

companies

holding

1929

the

— the Commission is unable to accept the date of noti-
fication of Decision 2003/757/EC as the starting date
of the ‘new’ transitional period that it proposes to set.
According to certain interested parties, the new tran-
sitional period should begin either on 30 October
2003, the date on which the above Decision was
published in the Official
Journal, or at the earliest
on 22 June 2006, the date of the Court's judgment.
Belgium takes the view that transitional measures are
traditionally fixed for the future and not for the past.
The starting date of
the new transitional period
should, therefore, be the date of notification of the
new final decision, i.e. the present Decision. It is from

(24)

(25)

companies

(18) Commission Decision 2006/940/EC of 19 July 2006 on aid scheme
‘1929’ holding
(OJ L 366,

C 3/2006 implemented by Luxembourg for
and ‘billionaire’ holding
companies
21.12.2006, p. 47).

(19) United Kingdom — Aid C 53/2001 (ex NN 52/2000) — Gibraltar
exempt companies — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (OJ C 26, 30.1.2002, p. 13).
(20) Commission Decision 2003/294/EC of 11 December 2002 on the
application by Portugal of the financial and tax aid scheme for the
free zone of Madeira in the period between 1 January and
31 December 2000 (OJ L 111, 6.5.2003, p. 45).

this date that all coordination centres should be
allowed an appropriate period (of at
two
years) in which to adapt to the new scheme.

least

and

following

— following the partial suspension and annulment of
the
Decision
2003/757/EC
annulment of Decision 2003/531/EC,
the under-
takings again had a legitimate expectation that the
scheme would be extended until the end of 2010.
Belgium also referred to the cost of dismissing coor-
dination centre
employees, which would justify
deferring the starting date of the transitional period
until the date of the present Decision.

— the particulars set out by the Commission in its
decision to extend the procedure in defence of its
proposal
for a transitional period running to the
end of 2005 or even the end of 2006 are not
the renewals granted by
relevant.
Belgium to coordination centres whose authorisations
expired between 17 February 2003 and 31 December
2005 do not go beyond 31 December 2005, a
temporary
the
judgment of the Court.

cautious measure pending

In particular,

and

— the Court having delivered its judgment on 22 June
2006, the Commission has not acted promptly to
secure adoption of new transitional measures. This
is also justification for granting a transitional period
to all the coordination centres with effect from the
date of notification of the present Decision laying
down these transitional measures.

Belgium considers that the Law of 27 December 2006
simply implements the Court's judgment and does not
constitute a new aid scheme but an extension of the
existing one. One of the coordination centres also takes
the view that its request for an extension, made after the
Court's judgment but prior to adoption of the Law,
is
based on a right of renewal recognised by the judgment
but not by the Law.

V. ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMISSION

The arguments presented by Belgium and the coordi-
the
nation centres are designed to demonstrate that
Commission must authorise all the coordination centres
to benefit from the scheme until 31 December 2010,
in accordance with the principle of equality
either
the
invoked by the Court, which would grant
centres the longest transitional period granted, i.e. until
31 December 2010, or under the principle of legitimate
expectations, which would require the Commission to fix
a date other than 18 February 2003, i.e. the date of the
judgment or that of the present Decision, as the starting

to all

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/11

the period necessary for

date of the appropriate transitional period demanded by
the Court. Neither Belgium nor
the undertakings
concerned have put
forward any arguments to show
that the appropriate transitional period, defined by the
the coordination
Court as
centres to adapt to the change of scheme, should run
from 18 February 2003 to 31 December 2010, i.e. for
more than seven years and ten months. For the reasons
set out in this section, the Commission takes the view
that the starting date of the transitional period must be
18 February 2003 and that the transitional period must
be of reasonable duration. On the basis of the infor-
mation
also
considers that this appropriate transitional period came
to an end on 31 December 2005.

the Commission

possession,

its

in

(26)

1. Limits to the annulment ordered by the Court

for

those

states

judgment of

The
the Court
that Decision
2003/757/EC is annulled ‘insofar as it does not
lay
coordination
down transitional measures
centres with an application for renewal of their authori-
sation pending on the date on which the contested
decision was notified or with an authorisation which
expired at the same time as or shortly after the notifi-
the
cation of
‘the expression
judgment,
spelt out
‘shortly after’ should be understood as referring to a
date so close to that on which the contested decision
the coordination centres concerned
was notified that
did not have the time required to adjust to the change
in the regime in question.’

the decision.’
the Court

In paragraph 163 of

that

(27)

First, it is important to note that the Court confirms the
merits of Decision 2003/757/EC in that it deems the
State aid scheme for coordination centres to be incom-
patible with the common market. This view has been
challenged before the Court by Forum 187 but not by
Belgium. It is not concerned by the partial suspension
and annulment of that Decision. The coordination centre
therefore, compatible as from the date of
scheme is,
notification of the Decision.

(28)

Second, the Commission takes the Court's judgment to
mean that the annulment is prompted by the finding that
Decision 2003/757/EC deprived certain undertakings of
the benefit of the appropriate transitional measures that
should have been granted to them to enable them to
adapt to the change of tax scheme.

(29)

The Court criticises the prohibition with immediate effect
of the renewal, even temporarily, of the coordination
the legitimate
centre authorisations

since it violates

expectation of certain centres ‘with an application for
renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on
which the contested decision was notified or with an
the same time as or
authorisation which expired at
shortly after the notification of the decision’.
It takes
the view that these centres could legitimately expect to
be granted an appropriate transitional period in which to
adapt to the change of scheme and, if necessary in order
to benefit
to obtain a
from this transitional period,
temporary extension of their authorisation.

(30)

The Court's judgment thus requires the Commission to
authorise renewal of the authorisations in so far as these
— temporary — renewals are needed to respect the right
of the coordination centres to an appropriate transitional
period. The Commission notes, therefore, that the Court
does not annul all
the prohibition of
the effects of
renewal — even temporarily — of the authorisations,
requested by Belgium and Forum 187 in their
as
appeals and as proposed in the conclusions of
the
Advocate-General. This prohibition thus produces its
effects except in so far as the renewal of the authorisa-
tions is necessary to comply with the judgment as to
substance.

(31) As pointed out in the comments received, the Court also
criticises the fact that differing transitional periods have
been granted to the undertakings — ranging from a few
months to several years — on the ground that this is at
variance with the general principle of
equality of
that the Commission
It suggests, therefore,
treatment.
should have fixed for all the undertakings concerned a
single appropriate transitional period,
i.e. one enabling
them to adapt to the change of scheme.

(32)

The Commission therefore committed an error by recog-
nising for the coordination centres a legitimate expec-
tation based on the duration (10 years) of the author-
isations and it granted too short a transitional period (i.e.
shorter than the appropriate transitional period) to some
longer
centres and too long a transitional period (i.e.
than the appropriate transitional period) to others.

(33) However, the wording used by the Court is such as to
limit the annulment to the absence of any appropriate
transitional period for certain undertakings ‘with an
application for renewal of their authorisation pending
on the date on which the contested decision was
notified or with an authorisation which expired at the
same time as or shortly after the notification of
the
decision’. It goes on to explain, in paragraph 163 of its
judgment, what it understands by ‘shortly after’.

L 90/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2008

(34) Accordingly, the Court's judgment does not require the
Commission to restore perfect equality of treatment as
between all the coordination centres but to offset the
effects of the inequality of treatment for certain under-
takings that would have suffered from the lack of an
appropriate transitional period. In the present case, the
equality of treatment calls for action to ensure that all the
undertakings have a transitional period in which to adapt
to the scheme. The judgment does not annul the defi-
the transitional period for the undertakings
nition of
granted a transitional period longer than the appropriate
transitional period for adapting to the change of scheme
and so the Commission may not shorten it in order to
restore equality of treatment.

(35)

(36)

does not

The Commission notes, however, that the Court refrains
from specifying the duration of the appropriate tran-
sitional measures and that it does not specify either the
number of undertakings deprived of such appropriate
measures and thus concerned by the annulment.
In
particular, the judgment does not state that the appro-
priate transitional period invoked is that ending on
the
31 December 2010 and
Commission, as Belgium claims, solely by virtue of the
principle of equality of treatment, to align the transitional
period for all the undertakings on the longest of the
transitional periods granted by Decision 2003/757/EC,
namely until 31 December 2010. On the contrary, the
Court seems to suggest that an identical period for all the
coordination centres that was designed solely to allow
them to adapt to the change of scheme would have
been appropriate and that only those whose authorisa-
tion ended shortly after have been deprived of the appro-
priate period.

require

in

for

period

Consequently, the Commission takes the view that the
transitional
Decision
provided
2003/757/EC must be adjusted only to the extent of
the annulment ordered by the Court. Similarly,
it
transitional period
appropriate
considers
invoked by the Court must be determined on the basis
of particulars demonstrating that it is appropriate, i.e. not
only sufficient but also necessary. The decision to extend
the procedure was designed to give Belgium and
interested third parties the opportunity:

that

the

— to state their views on the relevance of the particulars
already in the Commission's possession that seem to
indicate 31 December 2005 as the end of the appro-
priate transitional period;

— to put forward other particulars liable to demonstrate
that
the appropriate transitional period should be
extended beyond 31 December 2005, and where
appropriate until 31 December 2010 or any other
date.

(37)

The Commission takes pains below to demonstrate that
the appropriate transitional period invoked by the Court
should have begun on 18 February 2003 and should

have ended on 31 December 2005 for all the coordi-
nation centres, and not on 31 December 2010. It then
examines situations in which,
in its view, a legitimate
expectation raised by it obliges it to allow certain coor-
from the scheme beyond
dination centres to benefit
31 December 2005.

2. Starting date of the appropriate transitional

period

(38)

The comments from Belgium and interested third parties
suggest that the starting date of the transitional period to
be determined by the Commission following the Court's
judgment
the date on which Decision
2003/757/EC was notified. Various dates are proposed,
including the date of publication of that Decision in the
Official Journal and the date of notification of the present
Decision.

cannot be

(39) However, the Commission takes the view that the appro-
priate transitional period invoked by the Court must be
calculated as from the date of notification of Decision
2003/757/EC, i.e. as from 18 February 2003.

(40)

(41)

(42)

First, on 22 June 2006 the effects of the order of 26 June
2003 were replaced by those of the Court's judgment as
to substance, and this with retroactive effect from the
notification of Decision 2003/757/EC. The Court's
judgment takes account of the situation of the coordi-
nation centres at the date on which that Decision was
notified. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the
Court is demanding a transitional period the starting date
of which would differ from the date on which the
contested Decision was notified.

Second, the wording of the Court ruling refers explicitly
to that date since the Decision is annulled ‘insofar as it
does not lay down transitional measures for those coor-
dination centres with an application for renewal of their
authorisation pending on the date on which the
contested decision was notified or with an authorisation
which expired at the same time or shortly after the noti-
fication of the decision.’ (underlining added).

Third, the Commission takes the view that the legitimate
expectation that existed for the coordination centres on
the basis of the Commission's previous decisions and
positions on this matter was infringed at the latest on
the date on which Decision 2003/757/EC was notified.
In that Decision the Commission described the aid
scheme for the coordination centres as being incom-
patible with the common market and requested that it
be amended or terminated. This description was not
in its
suspended and was confirmed by the Court

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/13

it

the final date of

judgment of 22 June 2006. Accordingly, it produces its
effects as from the date on which Decision 2003/757/EC
was notified to Belgium. That Decision was also accom-
panied by a Commission press release and received wide
therefore,
press coverage. The Commission considers,
can regard the date on which Decision
that
2003/757/EC was notified as
in-
fringement of the legitimate expectation placed by the
coordination centres in the compatibility of the scheme
with the common market and thus as the starting date of
the transitional measures
justified by this previous
legitimate expectation. Since the legitimate expectation
was infringed once Decision 2003/757/EC had been
notified, the Commission takes the view that deferment
of the start of the transitional period is not justified, not
even until the date of publication of that Decision in the
Official Journal. Forum 187, the association representing
and acting on behalf of the coordination centres and, as
it has itself stated, recognised as such by Belgium, lodged
a detailed appeal before the Court at the end of April
2003 against 2003/757/EC, i.e. prior to publication of
the Decision in the Official
Journal. This shows that,
through the association charged with defending their
the
interests,
content of that Decision, and in particular the description
the aid as being incompatible with the common
of
market and the requirement
that Belgium amend or
terminate the scheme in question.

the coordination centres were aware of

(43)

in practice,

Lastly, the Commission notes that no coordination centre
suffered from the prohibition on
has,
renewing the authorisations and that, pursuant to either
Decision 2003/757/EC or the order of 26 June 2003, all
have been able since 18 February 2003 to benefit from a
transitional period enabling them to adapt to the change
of scheme imposed by the Commission. The order of
26 June 2003 also refers explicitly to the date on
which Decision 2003/757/EC was notified by suspending
the effects of the decision ‘insofar as it prohibited the
Kingdom of Belgium from renewing
coordination
centre authorisations effective as at the date of notifi-
cation of
added). This
suspension thus paved the way for renewal of the auth-
orisations
in force on 17 February 2003 and for
extension of the effects of the scheme until 22 June
2006 at
the judgment as to
the date of
substance. On 16 July 2003 the Commission also
confirmed that it would not be seeking repayment of
the aid granted on the basis of the order of 26 June
thereby assuring the coordination centres of
2003,
effective and definitive enjoyment of
the transitional
period resulting from the effects of the suspension.

the decision’

(underlining

the latest,

(45)

(46)

(47)

2003 at the latest. If the date of the Court judgment and
its content were not known to the coordination centres,
this uncertainty did not stem from any actions on the
part of the Commission. The judicial procedure was thus
not likely to give rise to a legitimate expectation —
enforceable against the Commission — that the coordi-
nation centre scheme was compatible with the common
market. The uncertainty stems from the introduction of
appeals which, as such, do not have suspensive effect.
cannot,
The
therefore,
the transitional period,
which had, in practice, been granted to the coordination
centres with effect from 18 February 2003, by deferring
the starting date of the transitional period to that date.

justify extension of

procedure

duration

judicial

the

of

3. Date of the end of the appropriate transitional
period

In determining the content of the appropriate transitional
measures and the exact duration of the appropriate tran-
sitional period, the Commission has based itself on the
information that
is available from the commitments
entered into and from the requests and statements
made by Belgium or the undertakings concerned before
or shortly after adoption of Decision 2003/757/EC. In its
opinion, this information provides the best illustration
not only of Belgium's position but also of the position
of the undertakings concerned as at 17 February 2003.
The absence of any reaction to some of the formal —
and challengeable — acts of the national authorities or to
Decision 2003/531/EC has also been interpreted as a
sign of acceptance on the part of
the undertakings
concerned.

First, Belgium had, within the code of conduct moni-
toring group, committed itself to abolishing the effects
the coordination centre scheme by 31 December
of
2005 at the latest. This undertaking was given in the
Council conclusions of 26 and 27 November 2000 (21).

The conclusions were made public in a press release (22)
and, on this basis, the Belgian Finance Minister declared
on 20 December 2000 before the Chamber of Represen-
tatives that ‘the coordination centres authorised for the
first time on 31 December 2000 […] will be able to
continue
until
31 December 2005, either under the initial authorisation
or under an authorisation renewal […].’ (23).

from the

scheme

benefit

to

(44)

The Commission also takes the view that it cannot accept
the arguments put forward by Belgium and the coordi-
nation centres in support of their request for deferral of
the starting date of the appropriate transitional period.
This is because the Court confirmed the description of
the aid as being incompatible with the common market
on 17 February 2003. The legitimate expectation raised
by the Commission decisions of 1984 and 1987
authorising the scheme was thus infringed in February

(21) On that date Belgium had not yet obtained the Council's agreement
to extend beyond 31 December 2005 the effects of the autho-
risations (already in force on 31 December 2000) that expired
after 31 December 2005.

(22) Ref. Council/00/453.
(23) See the reply by the Finance Minister dated 20 December 2000 to a
parliamentary question put by Mr Jacques Simonet, No 5 (Doc.
Parl., Chambre, Session 2000-2001, COM 343), referred to in
letter ref. PH/chw/1467 from Belgium dated 6 March 2003.

L 90/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2008

(48)

(49)

(50)

as

these

follows:

‘Under

letter of 6 March 2003 addressed to the
In a
Commission and mentioning the Council conclusions
and the statement by the Finance Minister, Belgium
commented
conditions,
Belgium has entered into commitments towards its coor-
dination centres the effects of which will come to an end
on 31 December 2005’. It also developed this argument
before the Court
the
judgment). Although it was not viewed by the Court as
justification for a legitimate expectation vis-à-vis the
Commission, the political commitment entered into by
Belgium towards
seems, by
contrast,
for assessing the transitional
period that Belgium deemed appropriate for them.

(paragraphs 141 and 142 of

its coordination centres

to be relevant

in Decision

2003/757/EC:

Second, in the letter of 6 March 2003, Belgium reacted
as follows to the reasonable length of time as defined by
‘The
the Commission
Commission has rightly granted a reasonable length of
time to the coordination centres. The decision to allow
the authorisation period in force to run its course is
justified, except
for the coordination centres with an
authorisation that expires in the months following the
Commission decision and, more particularly, before the
end of 2005 since these centres will not have time to
adapt to the early termination of the scheme for coordi-
nation centres. In this instance, the reasonable length of
time is insufficient.’ It also called on the Commission to
recast Decision 2003/757/EC and ‘to provide for the
possibility
centres with an authorisation
expiring before the end of 2005 to obtain a renewal
on the basis of the existing scheme until the end of
2005.’ The Commission again concludes from this that,
in Belgium's view, a reasonable length of time had not
been granted to the coordination centres with an auth-
orisation expiring before 31 December 2005 and, if these
coordination centres were to be granted a reasonable
length of
their authorisation
would have to be extended until 31 December 2005.

this meant

time,

that

the

for

request made by Belgium and Decision 2003/531/EC.
The Commission reacted to that Decision in a press
release on 16 July 2003. Neither Forum 187 nor any
of the coordination centres concerned challenged the said
decision or contested the restriction of the extension to
31 December 2005.

‘Forum 187, which seeks

Fourth, the Court resumed the request by Forum 187 in
the following terms:
the
annulment of the decision insofar as it does not lay
down appropriate transitional measures for the centres
with an authorisation which expires between 17 February
2003 and 31 December 2004’ and ‘the coordination
centres with an authorisation that expired during 2003
and 2004 needed a transitional period of two years in
to
which to reorganise themselves or,
leave Belgium’ (24). The Commission notes
that 34
months
elapsed between 17 February 2003 and
31 December 2005.

if appropriate,

2003

expired

between

February

Fifth, as authorised by the order of 26 June 2003,
Belgium renewed the coordination centre authorisations
that
and
17
31 December 2005. With the exception of four coordi-
nation centres, these authorisation were all renewed for a
period ending on 31 December 2005. Neither Belgium
nor the undertakings concerned reported any appeals
against this explicit restriction of the duration of the
authorisations. Similarly,
it would seem that none of
the undertakings concerned submitted — either before
31 December 2005 or even before 22 June 2006 —
any request for a further extension.

since

appropriate

transitional measures were
Sixth,
needed to allow Belgium to adapt
its legislation and
the coordination centres to adapt to a new tax regime,
the following points should be noted:

(51)

(52)

(53)

Third, on 20 March and 26 May 2003 Belgium notified
the Commission of its ‘intention to maintain the coordi-
nation centre scheme for coordination centres
that
existed on 31 December 2000 and had an authorisation
expiring between 17 February 2003 and 31 December
2005 until the latter date’. It also asked the Council to
adopt on the basis of
the third subparagraph of
Article 88(2) of the Treaty a decision authorising that
extension. That decision, Decision 2003/531/EC, was
adopted by the Council on 16 July 2003. It stipulates
‘The new aid planned is temporary. It is
in recital 10:
intended to […] by enabling the beneficiaries to continue
operating in Belgium, at least for the period necessary to
enable Belgium to introduce other measures for coordi-
nation centres established on its territory or to facilitate
reorganisation of the investments of the multinational
termination of
groups
contracts.’ A number of press articles
reported the

in question, avoiding abrupt

— the Royal Decree of 16 May 2003 amending, as
regards withholding tax,
im-
plementing the Income Tax Code coordinated in
1992 (AR/CIR92) provides for exemption from with-
holding tax in respect of interest paid by intra-group
banks (including coordination centres). It entered into
force on 5 June 2003.

the Royal Decree

(24) See the judgment in Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, parargaphs
140 and 145; see also the order of 26 June 2003, paragraph 73;
and the appeal lodged on 28 April 2003, in particular points 5 and
6 of the request for use of the accelerated procedure, paragraph 6
of the application for interim measures and paragraphs 148 to 150,
154 and 158.

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/15

— On 23 April 2003 the Commission approved the
advance tax ruling scheme implemented by Belgium
on 1 January 2003 (25), which also applied to coor-
dination centres. It also approved part of the new
scheme for coordination centres notified in May
2002.
In Decision 2005/378/EC of 8 September
2004 concerning the aid scheme which Belgium is
proposing to implement for coordination centres (26),
the Commission took the view that the new scheme
as amended by Belgium in line with its commitment
to do so did not constitute State aid.

(55)

4. Situation of coordination centres with an authori-
sation that was extended between 17 February 2003
and 31 December 2005

For the reasons given above, the Commission considers
that the appropriate transitional period sought by the
Court should have run from 18 February 2003 to
31 December 2005. For most of
the coordination
centres with a renewed authorisation based on the
order of 26 June 2003, the renewal period was restricted
by Belgium to 31 December 2005, in line therefore with
the appropriate transitional period defined in Sections 2
and 3.

this

— The Law of 22 June 2005 introducing a tax
deduction for risk capital (27) provides for a scheme
of notional interest deductions that entered into force
limited to the
on 1 January 2006. Although not
coordination centres,
scheme was developed
with the explicit objective in mind of offering an
attractive
coordination centre
to the
scheme, and in particular for those centres with an
authorisation terminating on 31 December 2005.
This measure was announced at the end of 2004
and was presented at the beginning of 2005 to the
representatives of
the coordination centres, who
seemed to have welcomed it (28). The measure also
received broad press coverage.

alternative

— The Law of 22 June 2005 also provides for the —
general — abolition of the 0,5 % registration duty on
capital transfers with effect from 1 January 2006.

(54)

attractive. On this basis

Consequently, on 1 January 2006 at the latest, the under-
takings concerned that had decided to stay in Belgium
could opt for a replacement scheme that was simple
(since it did not involve any major reorganisation (29))
and
date of
31 December 2005 thus seems to be a reasonable date
for the expiry of
the appropriate transitional period
demanded by the Court in so far as it allows all the
coordination centres
to move seamlessly from one
scheme to another. The Commission also notes that 70
of the 243 coordination centres present in 2002 have
ceased operations in Belgium.

too,

the

submit

pursuant

comments

(25) Belgium — Invitation to

to
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning measure C 26/03 (ex
N 351/02) — Change to the scheme for coordination centres
(OJ C 209, 4.9.2003, p. 2).
(26) OJ L 125, 18.5.2005, p. 10.
(27) Moniteur belge, 30 June 2005.
(28) See the reply by the Finance Minister to the oral parliamentary
questions put by Ms Pieters (QP No 5852 of 15 March 2005),
Mr Devlies (QP No 5911 of 15 March 2005) and Ms Anseeuw
(QP No 3-4179 of 20 January 2006).

(56) However, as regards the four coordination centres with a
renewed authorisation based on the order of 26 June
2003, the authorisation was renewed by Belgium for
an indefinite period. The Commission notes that
the
order of 26 June 2003 explicitly restricts the effects of
to
such renewals
substance. Consequently, provided that the coordination
centres concerned had not opted out of the coordination
centre scheme in favour of the notional interest scheme
for income in 2006, these authorisations were covered
by the said order until 22 June 2006.

the judgment as

to the date of

(57) While the Commission is of the opinion that the appro-
priate transitional period ended on 31 December 2005, it
does acknowledge that its press release of 16 July 2003
could have given rise among the coordination centres
concerned to the
there
would be no request for repayment of the aid from
which they benefited up to the date of
the Court
judgment as to substance.

expectation that

legitimate

(58)

Lastly, the coordination centre scheme is a tax scheme
applicable by tax year. Now, in many cases, the tax year
corresponds to the calendar year. Since the judgment was
delivered in mid-2006, the Commission takes the view
that the principle of legitimate expectation must apply
for each enterprise concerned until the end of the normal
tax period running on the date of the judgment.

5. Situation of the coordination centres with an
authorisation that was renewed prior to notification
of Decision 2003/757/EC

(29) The exemptions from withholding tax and capital duty were main-
tained for coordination centres and extended to other undertakings;
the deduction for notional interest is a purely tax transaction and
thus simple to apply.

(59) Decision 2003/757/EC recognised for all

the coordi-
nation centres the existence of a legitimate expectation
based on the 10-year duration of the authorisations in

L 90/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2008

force on the date of notification of that Decision and
defined the appropriate transitional period on that
same basis. The Court ruled that,
in the case of a
scheme that had become permanent, renewal of authori-
sation was a simple administrative formality. The coordi-
nation centres could,
to
therefore,
benefit from an appropriate transitional period and, as
expiry of their authorisation approached, they could also
expect to have their authorisation renewed so that they
could benefit from that appropriate transitional period.

legitimately expect

6. Status of the Law of 27 December 2006

(64)

The Commission notes that, although it did not notify
the Law of 27 December 2006
the provisions of
extending the authorisations of all
the coordination
centres until the end of 2010, Belgium suspended its
entry into force pending explicit
the
scheme by the Commission. For the reasons set out
below, the Commission takes the view that it is unable
to approve those provisions and thus calls on Belgium
not to apply them.

approval of

(60) As indicated in paragraphs (31) to (34), the Court also
ruled that the granting of different transitional periods as
a function of the date of expiry of the authorisations
amounted to an inequality of treatment. The Commission
concludes from this that it should have fixed a single —
appropriate — transitional period for all the coordination
centres.

(61) However, the Court annulled the definition of the tran-
sitional measure contained in Decision 2003/757/EC
only insofar as the measure was insufficient, i.e. shorter
than the appropriate transitional period, for certain coor-
to expire
dination centres with authorisations due
shortly. As it has already explained,
the Commission
considers that the annulment pronounced by the Court
relates only to the coordination centres with authorisa-
and
tion
31 December 2005 and that the appropriate transitional
period ended on 31 December 2005.

February

renewed

between

2003

17

(62)

Consequently, the Commission considers that the Court's
judgment did not annul the definition of the transitional
period contained in Decision 2003/757/EC for the coor-
dination centres with an authorisation still running on
17 February 2003 and due to expire on 31 December
2005 or at a later date. Although,
in the light of the
Court's judgment, the Commission now takes the view
that the transitional period set for those coordination
inasmuch as it
centres was too long,
provides
for a transitional period ending for each
centre concerned on the expiry of the authorisation in
its notification, Decision
force
of
still,
2003/757/EC has not been annulled and is
therefore, applicable. Accordingly, in so far as Decision
2003/757/EC is still applicable,
it does not allow the
Commission to shorten the duration of the transitional
period as fixed in that Decision for the coordination
centres concerned.

it notes that,

on the

date

(63) Any Commission decision introducing for all the coordi-
nation centres an identical transitional period ending on
31 December 2005 would, moreover, be deprived of any
practical effect on account of the legitimate expectation
raised by Decision 2003/757/EC for the coordination
centres referred to in paragraph (62).

(65) At the end of 2005, with the exception of the authorisa-
tions for the four coordination centres referred to in
Section 4, the authorisations that were renewed on the
basis of the order of 26 June 2003 expired. Apparently,
no further extension was envisaged, either by Belgium or
by the coordination centres, until
the judgment was
delivered on 22 June 2006. The new legal basis for the
renewal of all the coordination centres' authorisations
adopted until
until
27 December 2006,
i.e. one year after the expiry of
the said authorisations. The Law also allows retroactive
application, where appropriate to undertakings no longer
covered by the coordination centre scheme.

end of 2010 was not

the

(66) Unlike Belgium,

the Commission regards the Law of
27 December 2006 not as an act that simply implements
the judgment of 22 June 2006 with regard to the
if
existing measure, but as a new scheme which,
it
the
entered into force without
the procedure
Commission, would probably trigger
applicable to unlawful aid.

the prior approval of

(67)

expectation based

The judgment of 22 June 2006 confirms the incompati-
bility of the coordination centre scheme as of the date of
notification of Decision 2003/757/EC. From that date at
the latest, the scheme ceased to be a scheme involving
existing aid and the coordination centres are now in the
transitional period during which they may continue to
benefit from the scheme but may no longer rely on the
legitimate
on the Commission
decisions or notices in 1984, 1987 and 1990 (30). The
appeals lodged and the confirmation by the Court, only
in June 2006, of the scheme's incompatibility are not apt
to alter this fact. As such,
the appeals do not have
suspensory effect and the order of 26 June 2003 did
not suspend the description of the aid scheme as being
incompatible. For the same reasons, Belgium's legitimate
expectation regarding the compatibility of the scheme
was infringed at
the latest by Decision 2003/757/EC
and Belgium knowingly restricted to 31 December
2005 the authorisation extensions granted on the basis
of the order of 26 June 2003.

(30) Answer given on 12 July 1990 to Written Question No 1735/90
by Mr G. de VRIES to the Commssion (OJ C 63, 11.3.1991, p. 37).

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/17

(68)

The Commission considers a fortiori that the decision
taken by Belgium following the Court's judgment defini-
tively confirming the incompatibility of the scheme with
the common market to renew upon request the authori-
sations for all the coordination centres until the end of
2010 cannot form part of the existing measure or even
be covered by some legitimate expectation or other
raised by the Commission. In particular, the legitimate
expectation raised for
the coordination centres with
approvals that were renewed on the basis of the order
of 26 June 2003 could not be extended to renewals
granted under the Law of 27 December 2006. As they
were granted after the date of the Court's judgment as to
the substance, they would no longer be covered by the
effects of the order of 26 June 2003 and no legitimate
expectation would, therefore, flow any longer from the
Commission press release of 16 July 2003.

(69) Accordingly, any future extension of the incompatible aid
scheme would probably have to be regarded as illegal aid
that could be recovered.

7. Comparison with the transitional periods defined
in other Commission decisions

(70) As stated in paragraph (23), Belgium is also seeking
application of the principle of equality of treatment in
relation to tax measures which,
like the coordination
centre scheme, were the subject of a State aid decision.
Particular reference is made to the schemes for 1929
holding companies in Luxembourg, exempt companies
in Gibraltar and the free zone of Madeira, for which
the Commission approved transitional measures until
2010 and even authorised new members to join.

(71)

(72)

the decisions concerned,

The Commission takes the view that each case is special.
In each of
the transitional
measures were determined in the light of the special
characteristics peculiar to each scheme, to its beneficiaries
and to the Member State concerned. It considers that it
took this same approach in the case of the Belgian coor-
dination centres by fixing in Decision 2003/757/EC for
the above reasons the date of the end of the appropriate
transitional period at 31 December 2010 at the latest.

The Commission notes in particular that
the present
Decision follows on from a Court judgment which it
must carry out. Under no circumstances can it replace
implementation of
simple
comparison of the duration of the transitional measures
granted in other cases.

judgment with a

that

for

the Commission notes as to form that some
(23),
decisions were taken a long time ago while others were
taken much more recently, that some of them authorise
new entrants while others do not, and that some of them
are subject to conditions. Furthermore, other points of
comparison could be used that,
in the Commission's
opinion, are also valid. For instance, in the case of the
financing activities
Dutch scheme
international
(Concernfinancieringsactiviteiten), which was
terminated,
also on 17 February 2003, by Commission Decision
2003/515/EC (31),
transitional measures were
defined in the same way as
the coordination
i.e. on the basis of the expiry of the 10-year
centres,
authorisations. Similarly, although they were not
the
subject of a Commission decision, Belgium terminated
the
centre
schemes for all undertakings on 31 December 2005.
circular, published on
The
those schemes were
20 September 2005, states that
replaced by the rules on advance decisions introduced
on 1 January 2003 (Article 20 of
the Law of
24 December 2002).

special distribution centre

administrative

and service

relevant

the

for

(74)

For these reasons,
cannot accept
with other cases.

it
the Commission considers that
the arguments based on a comparison

8. Legal uncertainty generated by the Commission's
failure to act

(75)

Belgium considers that a longer transitional period would
be justified by the legal uncertainty resulting from the
Commission's inability to set promptly new transitional
measures following the annulment ordered by the Court.

(76)

The Commission takes the view that responsibility for
the delay referred to cannot be imputed to it.

(77)

(78)

First, neither the interpretation given by Belgium nor its
resulting intention to extend the authorisation for all the
coordination centres until 31 December 2010 has been
the subject of a notification — or even of an information
memo — to the Commission.

Second, the Commission addressed to Belgium on 4 July
2006 a letter aimed at gathering the information
necessary to apply the Court's judgment and to obtain
confirmation of the proper implementation of Decision
2003/757/EC, due regard being had to the effects of the
order of 26 June 2003 and of the said judgment. Since

(73)

In addition, without going into a detailed justification as
to substance as in the decisions referred to in paragraph

(31) OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52.

L 90/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2008

Belgium did not reply, a first reminder was sent on
23 August 2006. Despite subsequent reminders, both
formal and informal, and although Belgium was, on
more than one occasion, given further time in which
to reply, the information requested was not sent to the
Commission until January 2007. It transpires from the
explanatory memorandum and from Article 379 of the
Law of 27 December 2006 that, on 20 July 2006, the
Finance Minister had been instructed to accept as quickly
as possible the renewal requests for coordination centres.

(79) On the basis of the information at its disposal at the time
(see paragraph (21)), the Commission expected Belgium
the coordination
to extend the authorisations for all
centres until the end of 2005, as this would,
in the
Commission's opinion, correspond to the appropriate
transitional period ordered by the Court. However, the
information provided by Belgium in January 2007 made
it clear that Belgium intended to extend the author-
isations for all the coordination centres until the end
of 2010 on the basis of a law adopted in December
2006 but not notified to the Commission. These new
facts justified the adoption on 21 March 2007 of the
decision extending the procedure and the analysis of
the new arguments presented by Belgium and third
parties.

(80)

Belgium replied on 16 January 2007 to the questions put
by the Commission on 4 July 2006.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

pending on the date on which that Decision was
notified or with an authorisation which expired at
the same time as or shortly after the notification of
that Decision,
i.e. between 18 February 2003 and
31 December 2005;

— it authorises as part of

transitional
measures
the coordination centres concerned to
benefit from the incompatible state aid scheme until
31 December 2005;

these special

— it authorises to this end the temporary renewal of the
authorisations of the coordination centres concerned
insofar as this is necessary to enable them to benefit
from the scheme until 31 December 2005 at the
latest. For the rest, the renewal prohibition must be
maintained.

periods

transitional

(84) No further amendments are needed to the Decision. In
into question
particular, the Commission does not call
the
Decision
by
2003/757/EC insofar as the latter allows certain coordi-
nation centres to benefit from the incompatible scheme
their current authorisation and until
until expiry of
31 December 2010 at
the
Decision has not been annulled by the Court and is,
therefore, still applicable.

the latest. This aspect of

granted

(81)

(82)

the

Commission must

First,
Decision
2003/757/EC to the extent that it was annulled by the
Court judgment of 22 June 2006.

amend

The Court judgment of 22 June 2006 in Joined Cases
C-182/03 and C-217/03 annuls Decision 2003/757/EC
‘insofar as it does not lay down transitional measures for
those coordination centres with an application for
renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on
which the contested decision was notified or with an
authorisation which expired at
the same time as or
shortly after the notification of the decision’.

(83)

Following this judgment, the substantive provisions of
Decision 2003/757/EC must be amended so that:

— it provides for special transitional measures for the
coordination centres with an application for renewal

(85)

(86)

Second, the Commission must also acknowledge that its
press release of 16 July 2003 was such as to give rise for
the four coordination centres with an authorisation
renewed for an indefinite period on the basis of the
order of 26 June 2003 to the legitimate expectation
that they could benefit from the incompatible scheme
until the date of the Court's judgment as to substance.
Since that judgment was delivered on 22 June 2006 and
given the fiscal nature of the measure, enjoyment of the
legitimate expectation must be extended to allow those
coordination centres to benefit from the incompatible
scheme until
taxable period
running on the date of the judgment.

the end of

the normal

Third, the Commission must call on Belgium to refrain
from implementing the provisions of
the Law of
27 December 2006 aimed at extending the author-
isations
until
31 December 2010 as those provisions are incompatible
with the common market,

coordination

centres

the

all

of

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/19

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following text is hereby added to Article 2 of Decision
2003/757/EC:

‘The coordination centres with an application for renewal
pending on the date on which the present Decision is
notified or with an authorisation which expires at the same
time as or shortly after such notification,
i.e. between the
date of notification and 31 December 2005, may continue
to benefit from the scheme for coordination centres until
31 December 2005. Renewal of the authorisation for the
said
until
coordination centres
31 December 2005 at the latest.’

is hereby

authorised

Article 2

the President of

The four coordination centres in Belgium with an authorisation
that has been renewed for an indefinite period on the basis of
the order of
the
European Communities of 26 June 2003 deferring implemen-
tation of Decision 2003/757/EC may benefit from the scheme
for coordination centres until the end of the normal taxable
period running on 22 June 2006.

the Court of

Justice of

extend by way of new decisions to renew authorisations the
scheme for coordination centres beyond 31 December 2005.

Accordingly, the Commission calls on Belgium to desist from
Law of
the
implementing
27 December 2006.

provisions

relevant

the

of

Article 4

Article 1 shall apply with effect from 18 February 2003.

Article 5

Belgium shall
inform the Commission within two months of
the date of publication of this Decision of the measures taken to
comply with it.

Article 6

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium

Done at Brussels, 13 November 2007.

Article 3

The Law of 27 December 2006 is incompatible with the
common market in so far as its provisions are designed to

For the Commission

Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission