This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0620
Case T-620/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
Case T-620/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
Case T-620/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
OJ C 39, 11.2.2012, p. 18–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 39/18 |
Action brought on 2 December 2011 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
(Case T-620/11)
(2012/C 39/35)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: GFKL Financial Services AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: M. Schweda, S. Schultes-Schnitzlein, J. Eggers and M. Knebelsberger, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275, on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26); |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is not a selective measure
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: there are no subsidies from State resources In this connection the applicant submits that there are no subsidies from State resources for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU in the carry forward of losses maintained by the provision, as that provision does not confer a financial advantage, but merely maintains a company’s already existing financial position |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons The applicant submits in that regard, that the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. The applicant takes the view that there is no comprehensible reason for the reference system used as a basis by the defendant. In addition, the multitude of errors the defendant made in it assessment of the underlying German corporation tax law means as a whole that the basic reasons are no longer discernible. The applicant submits that the contested decision does not make it possible to discern the factual and legal circumstances on which the defendant bases its view that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses constitutes State aid. |
4. |
Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations In this connection the applicant submits that the contested decision in also unlawful in so far as it orders the immediate and effective recovery of the (putative) aid without allowing Germany to take into account the existing justified legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries that the benefit would continue to exist. The contested decision to that extent infringes the unwritten principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under EU law. |