C 112/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.3.2023
Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: — set aside the judgment under appeal; — order the applicant to bear the costs arising from cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 and from the present appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the appeal, the European Commission raises two pleas in law. 1.
The General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution’ under the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.
The General Court misapplied the concept of ‘matters where the decision has not be taken by the institution’ by confining the application of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to matters submitted for deliberation within the institution or imminently submitted for deliberation. 2.
The General Court erred in law when assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’ within the meaning of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001.
The second plea is divided in two parts.
Firstly, the General Court substituted its own interpretation of the contested decisions and adopted a contradictory reasoning.
Secondly, the General Court erroneously rejected the relevance of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers and the Standards Rules of procedure for committees with the view to assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’.
Moreover, it did not use the correct legal standards to assess relevant factors and it omitted to assess the relevant factors as part of a body of consistent evidence.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of First Instance of Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 December 2022 — Casino de Spa SA and Others (Case C-741/22) (2023/C 112/25) Language of the case: French Referring court Court of First Instance of Liège
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Casino de Spa SA and Others Defendant: Belgian State (SPF Finances)
Questions referred 1.
Must Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of neutrality be interpreted as precluding a Member State from using different treatment for online lotteries offered by Loterie Nationale [(the Belgian national lottery)], a public establishment, which are exempt from value added tax, and other online games of chance offered by private operators, which are subject to value added tax, assuming that they are similar supplies?