EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0892
Case T-892/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v Commission
Case T-892/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v Commission
Case T-892/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v Commission
OJ C 53, 20.2.2017, p. 37–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
20.2.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 53/37 |
Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v Commission
(Case T-892/16)
(2017/C 053/46)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Apple Sales International (Cork, Ireland) and Apple Operations Europe (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Bonin and E. van der Stok, lawyers, D. Beard QC, A. Bates, L. Osepciu and J. Bourke, Barristers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 August 2016 on State aid SA.38373 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by Ireland to Apple; |
— |
alternatively, annul the decision in part; and |
— |
order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on fourteen pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its interpretation of Irish law.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the ALP does not operate as the test for State aid in tax assessments under Article 107 TFEU.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made fundamental errors relating to the applicants’ activities outside of Ireland.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made fundamental errors relating to the applicants’ activities in Ireland.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s presumptions are contrary to the burden of proof, OECD guidelines and unanimous expert evidence; the conclusion is self-contradictory.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicants were treated in the same way as other non-resident taxpayers in Ireland and were not afforded selective treatment.
|
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the primary line must be annulled for a breach of an essential procedural requirement.
|
8. |
Eighth plea in law, alleging that there were errors of fact and assessment in the Commission’s application of the TNMM to the Irish branches under the subsidiary line.
|
9. |
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the alternative line is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements and manifest error of assessment.
|
10. |
Tenth plea in law, alleging that the subsidiary and alternative lines do not enable calculation of a recovery amount.
|
11. |
Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity by ordering recovery of the alleged aid. |
12. |
Twelfth plea in law, alleging a failure to conduct a diligent and impartial investigation. |
13. |
Thirteenth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
14. |
Fourteenth plea in law, alleging that the decision exceeds the Commission’s competence under Article 107(1) TFEU.
|