Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62023CN0757

Case C-757/23 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2023 by Magnetrol International and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered 20 September 2023 in Cases T 263/16 RENV, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16 et T-832/16, Magnetrol International and Others v Commission

OJ C, C/2024/1535, 26.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1535/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1535/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

Series C


C/2024/1535

26.2.2024

Appeal brought on 6 December 2023 by Magnetrol International and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered 20 September 2023 in Cases T 263/16 RENV, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16 et T-832/16, Magnetrol International and Others v Commission

(Case C-757/23 P)

(C/2024/1535)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Magnetrol International, Puratos, Delta Light, Ontex, Siemens Industry Software, BASF Antwerpen NV, Ansell Healthcare Europe NV, Trane, Inc., Kinepolis Group, Vasco Group, Mayekawa Europe NV/SA (represented by: H. Gilliams, L. Goossens, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Celio International SA, Astra Sweets, Soudal NV, Esko-Graphics BVBA, Flir Systems Trading Belgium, Celio International SA, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Ampar, Atlas Copco Airpower, Atlas Copco AB, ZF CV Systems Europe, formerly Wabco Europe

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings of Appellants in the present case, as well as in Cases T-263/16, T-263/16 RENV, C-337/19 P, T-265/16, T-311/16, T-319/16, T-321/16, T-343/16, T-350/16, T-444/16, T-800/16, and

annul Commission Decision 2016/1699 (1) or, in any event, Article 2 thereof.

Or, in the alternative:

set aside the judgment under appeal, and

refer the Case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 correctly defined the reference framework and also was justified in finding that the scheme derogates from the reference system.

The second ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that Commission Decision 2016/1699 was justified in qualifying the scheme as a selective measure.

The third ground of appeal is directed against the finding in the judgment under appeal that the recovery order, as expressed in Commission Decision 2016/1699, was justified.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (OJ 2016, L 260, p. 61).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1535/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top