EN
21.11.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 441/11
and therefore must it be interpreted as meaning [that] the national legislation laid down in Article 5-bis of Decree-Law No 1 of 24 January 2012 (as amended by Conversion Law No 27 of 24 March 2012) — which added paragraphs 7-ter and 7-quater to Article 10 of Law No 287/1990 — is contrary to EU law as stated above?
(1) (2)
OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.
OJ 2019 L 11, p. 3.
Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd, London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2022 in Joined Cases T-363/19 and T-456/19, United Kingdom and ITV v Commission (Case C-564/22 P) (2022/C 441/15) Language of the case: English Parties Appellants: LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd, London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, O.W. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten) Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ITV plc
Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: — set aside the judgment under appeal; — render final judgment and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 of the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning Controlled Foreign Company Group Financing Exemption (1) (the ‘contested decision’); — or in the alternative, refer the case back to the General court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court; and — order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on five pleas in law: First, the General Court erred in law by distorting national law and overlooking evidence in identifying the reference system as the United Kingdom CFC (controlled foreign companies) rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (the ‘TIOPA’), rather than the United Kingdom corporate taxation system of which they form an inseparable part.
Second, even if the reference system would be the United Kingdom CFC rules, the General Court erred in law in identifying the objective of the reference system, and consequently erred in identifying the provisions in Chapter 5 of the United Kingdom CFC rules as determining the ‘normal’ taxation of non-trading finance profits such that the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA would confer an ‘advantage’.
Third, the General Court erred in law in relation to the finding of a selective advantage.
In particular, the General Court erred in law by incorrectly concluding that economic operators, which were able to benefit from the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA, were in a comparable legal and factual situation with companies, which were not.