Case T‑131/16 R

Kingdom of Belgium

v

European Commission

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — Tax scheme exempting excess profits of a number of multinational companies — Exemption granted on the basis of tax rulings — Decision declaring scheme to be aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery of the aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency’

Summary — Order of the President of the General Court, 19 July 2016

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief — Balancing of all the interests involved

   (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence

   (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage that can be pleaded by a Member State — Obligation to establish that, without the interim measure, State functions, public order or an entire sector of the economy would be seriously affected — No need to prove urgency — Prima facie case — No impact on the obligation to examine urgency separately

   (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Public interest defended by the Commission and the interest of the beneficiary of the aid — No urgency or exceptional circumstances — Primacy of the public interest

   (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 12-14)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 22, 23)

3.  The Member States are responsible for those interests that are regarded as general interests at national level. Consequently, Member States may defend them in proceedings for interim measures and may request interim measures by asserting, inter alia, that the contested measure could seriously jeopardise the performance of their State tasks and public order. The Member States, may, moreover, invoke damage affecting a sector of their economy, in particular when the contested measure is liable to have unfavourable repercussions on the level of employment and the cost of living. On the other hand, it is not sufficient for Member States to rely on the harm which would be suffered by a limited number of undertakings when those undertakings, taken individually, do not constitute an entire sector of the national economy.

   A relaxation of the conditions applicable to assessing the existence of urgency has been permitted only in areas of litigation, namely restrictive measures in the matter of the common foreign and security policy, the award of public contracts and access to documents, where it is excessively difficult, if not impossible, for systemic reasons, to satisfy the conditions, as they are laid down in the Rules of Procedure and traditionally interpreted in the case-law.

   Apart from those areas of litigation, the applicant is still required to demonstrate the imminence of serious and irreparable harm; a prima facie case, however strong, cannot make up for the lack of urgency.

   (see paras 24, 37-43)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 45-49)