CELEX: 62010CN0452
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-452/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2010 by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission

20.11.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 317/22
            
         Appeal brought on 16 September 2010 by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission
   (Case C-452/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/39
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, avvocati)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro v European Commission, notified by fax on 1 July 2010 (OJ 2010 C 221, p. 39) and, accordingly:
               
                           (i)
                        
                        
                           uphold the form of order sought in the application initiating proceedings at first instance for the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 (C(2008) 869 final) on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy ‘on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks’ (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70); or
                        
                     
                           (ii)
                        
                        
                           in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The appellants submit that the General Court did not carry out a thorough review of the Commission’s decision, refusing to ascertain whether it was lawful for the Commission to decide not to take into account the situation of the transferring entities for the purposes of determining whether the contested scheme was selective;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The appellants submit that, by adopting as the criteria for its own assessment only the data proposed by the Commission in its decision, the General Court misinterpreted the case-law of the Court of Justice, which allows the specific nature of a fiscal measure to be justified in the light of the logic of the general tax system;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The appellants submit that the General Court misinterpreted the case-law on the requirement for State aid to be selective, according to which, in order to determine whether a fiscal measure is selective, regard must be had simply to the effects which it is likely to produce in terms of taxation;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               The appellants submit that the General Court distorted the facts, by holding mistakenly that the general realignment scheme did not allow undertakings to realign the tax cost of the assets relating to undertakings received by way of transfer with the higher values recorded on the balance sheet;
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Lastly, the appellants submit that the General Court wrongly substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission, developing afresh reasons in support of the contested decision of the Commission.