1.

Must Article 2(2) of the Decision of 11 January 2016 of the European Commission (SA.37667) according to which ‘any sums (of the aid measure, deemed to be unlawful, of Belgium to Tekelec International BVBA, consisting of a tax exemption for so-called “excess profit” for the financial years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, granted by the Ruling Commission of the Belgian tax administration by decision of 1 July 2008) that remain unrecoverable from the recipients of the aid, following the recovery described in the paragraph 1, shall be recovered from the corporate group to which the recipient belongs’, be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the acquisition of the recipient of the aid measure (Tekelec International BVBA) by a new corporate group (the Oracle Group) after the end of the aid measure (the aid measure applicable to the financial years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and the acquisition dated 10 June 2013) and before the start of the European Commission's investigation into the lawfulness of the aid measure (launched by letter of 19 December 2013), ‘the corporate group to which the recipient belongs’ becomes the corporate group of the buyer, or does it remain the corporate group of the seller?

2.

If the answer to the first question, irrespective of the nature of the aid measure deemed to be unlawful (economic or tax-related), is dependent on whether or not the acquisition price is market-based, namely, that the corporate group of the seller remains the beneficiary if the acquisition price is market-based, more specifically, if the value of the aid measure concerned is included in the acquisition price, and that the corporate group of the buyer becomes the beneficiary if the acquisition price is below the market price, more specifically, if the value of the aid measure concerned is not or is not fully included in the acquisition price, who then bears the burden of proof, when the aid measure deemed unlawful is recovered from the corporate group of the buyer, or a member thereof: must the new corporate group or the member thereof being held liable, prove that the acquisition price is market-based or must the recovering body, the Belgian State, prove that the acquisition price is below the market price?

3.

If, on the other hand, the answer to the first question, due to the tax nature of the contested aid measure, is not dependent on whether or not the acquisition price is market-based, what is the basis for determining which corporate group, as a result of the acquisition, is the ‘the corporate group to which the recipient belongs’?