This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0337
Case C-337/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium — Excess profit exemption — Tax ruling — Consistent administrative practice — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(d) — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Concept of ‘act’ — Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ — ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)
Case C-337/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium — Excess profit exemption — Tax ruling — Consistent administrative practice — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(d) — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Concept of ‘act’ — Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ — ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)
Case C-337/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium — Excess profit exemption — Tax ruling — Consistent administrative practice — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(d) — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Concept of ‘act’ — Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ — ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)
OJ C 471, 22.11.2021, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 16/09/2021
- Date lodged:
- 24/04/2019
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Appeal - successful, Action for annulment
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62019CJ0337
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
22.11.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 471/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland
(Case C-337/19 P) (1)
(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium - Excess profit exemption - Tax ruling - Consistent administrative practice - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(d) - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Concept of ‘act’ - Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ - ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)
(2021/C 471/03)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, C. Pochet and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura and M. Clayton, avocates), Magnetrol International (represented by: H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, advocaten), Ireland
Interveners in support of the defendants: Soudal NV, Esko-Graphics BVBA (represented by: H. Viaene, avocat), Flir Systems Trading Belgium BVBA (represented by: T. Verstraeten and C. Docclo, avocats, and by N. Reypens, advocaat), Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, Ampar BVBA, Atlas Copco Airpower NV, Atlas Copco AB (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, W.O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten, and by A. Haelterman, avocat), Wabco Europe BVBA (represented by: E. Righini and L. Villani, avvocati, S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, and by A. Papadimitriou, avocat), Celio International NV (represented by: H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, advocaten)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 February 2019, Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission (T-131/16 and T-263/16, EU:T:2019:91); |
|
2. |
Rejects the first and second pleas in law in Case T-131/16, and the first plea in law and the first part of the third plea in law in Case T-263/16; |
|
3. |
Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the third to fifth pleas in law in Case T-131/16 and on the second plea in law, the second and third parts of the third plea in law, and the fourth plea in law in Case T-263/16; |
|
4. |
Reserves the costs. |
