Case T-681/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) v Commission
Date: 2016-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid








C_2016441EN.01002301.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/23






Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) v Commission
(Case T-681/16)
(2016/C 441/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) (Westerlo, Belgium) (represented by: N. Reypens, C. Docclo and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


join the present case and Case T-131/16 on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the judgment;










—


admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;










—


annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision (1);










—


in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the legal acts that provide for the alleged Sate aid and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (2).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of fact in the description of the reference system, a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of it and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of an economic advantage, error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessing the selectivity necessary to characterise the disputed regime as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and an error of assessment in analysing the mechanisms of the disputed regime.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the analysis of the justification of the conditions for the application of the disputed regime.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment when evaluating the alleged advantage derived from the disputed regime and a lack of precision in the examination of the disputed regime.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the taxpayers’ legitimate expectations and legal certainty.






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61)

(2)  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)