Skip to content

Keyword: tax

The search returned 41 results.

Andres: The Unfinished Business of a Seemingly Selective Non-Advantage· Case C-203/16 P Dirk Andres v European Commission · Annotation by Raymond Luja journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 in Case C-203/16 P Dirk Andres v European Commission

Raymond Luja

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 578 - 584

The Andres judgement has often been seen as a Milestone on selectivity, but in essence it is not. It rather deals with the absence of an advantage. In this contribution the author revisits Andres and concludes that, from a transactional perspective set forth in Sigma Alimentos Exterior, the outcome could well have been different. He also points out that Andres opened up a loophole to the state aid regime that could be exploited by providing targeted relief to over-inclusive anti-abuse measures. He concludes that it is primarily up to national legislators and domestic courts to guard against disproportional tax measures. Milestones Preview: this annotation is based on a chapter of the upcoming second edition of the book 'Milestones in State Aid Case Law' (Lexxion 2022).

Let Down by the Facts: The General Court Annuls the European Commission Decision on Irish Tax Arrangement for Apple · Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 Ireland and Others v European Commission · Annotation by Veronika Korom journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 July 2020 in Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 Ireland and Others v European Commission

Veronika E. Korom

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 2, Page 277 - 283

The General Court's decision in Apple’s Irish tax case confirmed that the European Commission is competent to review national tax rulings for whether they confer a selective advantage on a tax payer. Further, the GCEU validated the legal tests on which the Commission relied in reaching its State aid decision. However, the GCEU found that the Commission had failed in its assessment of the specific facts of this case and in particular failed to show the existence of a selective advantage. It therefore annulled the Commission’s decision. Given that the GCEU ruled in favour of the Commission on virtually all points of law but censured the Commission on questions of fact, the Commission’s appeal to the CJEU is likely to face significant challenges on both admissibility and substance.

Spanish Professional Football Clubs: How Salient Is the Exact Nature of the Aid? · Cases T-865/16 FC Barcelona v Commission, C-362/19 P Commission v FC Barcelona, T-791/16 Real Madrid CF v Commission, T-766/16 Hércules CF v Commission, T-732/16 Valencia journal article

Annotation on the Judgments of the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case T-865/16 FC Barcelona v Commission (GC, 26 February 2019), C-362/19 P Commission v FC Barcelona (CJEU, 4 March 2021), T-791/16 Real Madrid CF v Commission (GC, 22 May 2019), T-766/16 Hércules CF v Commission (GC, 20 March 2019), T-732/16 Valencia CF v Commission (GC, 12 March 2020), T-901/16 Elche CF v Commission (GC, 12 March 2020)

Jacob Kornbeck

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 1, Page 120 - 138

Five judgments handed down by the General Court (GC), in 2019-20, and by the Court of Justice, in 2021, have clarified aspects of three Commission State aid decisions regarding Spanish professional football clubs, through preferential tax rates applicable to non-profit organisations (Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao, Atletico Osasuna) and land transactions between municipal and regional authorities and private entities (Real Madrid) and financial guarantees offered by public authorities to private entities (Hércules CF, Valencia CF, Elche CF). Not only questions of substance were clarified but also procedural ones. Two GC rulings were appealed to the Court. The specificity of sport (Article 165 TFEU) does not appear to have been instrumental in shaping any of the judgments annotated.

Taxation, State Aid Rules and Arbitral Courts: journal article

A BIT of a Mess in the Micula Saga

Begoña Pérez Bernabeu

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 329 - 338

In its long-awaited ruling on 18 June 2019, the General Court (GC) annulled the Commission's State aid Decision in the Micula case where the Commission considered that the damages payment by Romania of an ICSID award constituted State aid. In the GC's opinion, the payment of the adverse arbitration award by a Romania does not constitute illegal State aid. Unfortunately, the GC's reasoning is tied to the timing of the measure taken by Romania, which took place before Romania acceded to the EU, and the rest of the compelling substantive pleas were not assessed. Moreover, the GC did not rule on whether the compensation of the withdrawal of the tax incentives for the post-accession period constitutes State aid given that the Commission failed to distinguish between compensation for the period predating accession and post-accession. For this reason, this judgment does not put an end to the Micula saga as long as the Commission has lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice. Keywords: arbitral award, Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), repeal of tax incentives, damages compensation, enforcement

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024