Case C-758/23 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2023 by Celio International SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Cases T 263/16 RENV, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16 et T-832/16, Magnetrol International and Others v Commission
Date: 2023-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, multinational enterprise, profit, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax law








C_202401536EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1536


26.2.2024





Appeal brought on 6 December 2023 by Celio International SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Cases T 263/16 RENV, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16 et T-832/16, Magnetrol International and Others v Commission
(Case C-758/23 P)
(C/2024/1536)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Celio International SA (represented by: H. Gilliams, L. Goossens, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Magnetrol International, Puratos, Delta Light, Ontex, Siemens Industry Software, BASF Antwerpen NV, Ansell Healthcare Europe NV, Trane, Inc., Kinepolis Group, Vasco Group, Mayekawa Europe NV/SA, Astra Sweets, Soudal NV, Esko-Graphics BVBA, Flir Systems Trading Belgium, Anheuser-Busch Inbev, Ampar, Atlas Copco Airpower, Atlas Copco AB, ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings of Appellant in the present case, as well as in the Case T-832/16, and as intervener in the Cases T-263/16 RENV and C-337/19 P, and










—


annul Commission Decision 2016/1699 (1) or, in any event, Article 2 thereof.




Or, in the alternative:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal, and










—


refer the Case back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 correctly defined the reference framework and also was justified in finding that the scheme derogates from the reference system.
The second ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 was justified in qualifying the scheme as a selective measure.
The third ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that the recovery order, as expressed in Commission Decision 2016/1699, was justified.
The fourth ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 was justified in ordering recovery from Celio International.


(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 (OJ 2016, L 260, p. 61).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1536/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)