Available languages

Taxonomy tags

Info

References in this case

Share

Highlight in text

Go

20.6.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/6

Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission

(Case C-209/16 P)

(2016/C 222/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as unfounded;

—

annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, C(2011)275 final, in State aid case C 7/10 — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), under Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on one ground of appeal.

There has been an infringement of the first paragraph of Article 107 TFEU. The General Court disregarded the fact that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on corporation tax; ‘the KStG’), the ‘restructuring clause’, is not selective:

—

The ‘restructuring clause’ is not a priori selective, since it does not provide for any derogation from the relevant system of reference and is a general provision capable of benefiting any undertaking in the territory of the Member State.

—

The ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and inner logic of the tax system. The restructuring clause is justified, first, by the principle of taxation according to economic ability to pay, second, by the objective of tackling abuse, namely in preventing abusive structuring, and, third, by the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of a shareholding and an acquisition of a shareholding for the purposes of restructuring.