The EU Commission has published guidance when or whether public spending falls within, and outside, the scope of EU State aid control. This guidance will help public authorities and companies to identify when public support measures can be granted without needing approval under EU State aid rules.
Ryanair was unsuccessful in its action against state aid from Sweden before the European General Court as the court of first instance. Within a short period of time, the airline had brought actions against 16 different state aid measures, including the Swedish case involving the state support for the local airline SAS and which is currently pending before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In his Opinion Advocate General Pitruzzella suggests that the ECJ rejects the appeal in its entirety.
In a Polish case, the ECJ has commented on the distinction between tax exemptions and state aid and specified under what circumstances tax exemptions may be prohibited by EU law.
The European Commission adopted a revised Communication on State aid rules for research, development, and innovation (‘2022 RDI Framework'), which sets out the rules under which Member States can grant State aid to companies for RDI activities, while ensuring a level playing field. The 2022 RDI Framework, which contributes to the EU's strategic objectives relating to the green and digital transitions, has entered into force today.
Advocate General Kokott is of the view that the Commission erred in deciding that Luxembourg had granted unauthorized state aid to Amazon in the form of tax advantages.
Back in June 2017 we informed you of the Supreme Tax Court's referral to the European Court of Justice of the question as to whether the RETT exemption on conversions(Section 6a Real Estate Transfer Tax Act) constitutes illicit State Aid.
In a request for a preliminary ruling, the Supreme Tax Court has referred several questions to the ECJ regarding the compatibility of non-profit tax status and the prohibition of state aid under EU law. The question to be answered is whether the extension of tax relief for special-purpose entities to companies that provide services for remuneration in cooperation with a corporation that is recognized as a non-profit organization (so-called service corporation) constitutes illicit state aid in accordance with Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In a recent judgment the General Court of the EU dismissed the applications of two joint cases seeking annulment of the European Commission’s State aid decision on the UK Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules in force until 31 December 2018.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirms in his most recent judgment that the Commission has not established that the tax ruling given to Amazon by Luxembourg was a State aid that was incompatible with the internal market.
The ECJ has held that a Finnish exemption from a loss forfeiture provision on the change of shareholders would be state aid if the authorities may apply it with discretion and would require Commission approval if the details of the scheme have substantially changed since Finland’s accession in 1995.
The ECJ overturned an earlier judgment of the European General Court and held that the German tax legislation concerning the possibility of a loss-carry forward to future tax years despite a harmful share acquisition in cases of a rescue plan to save the company from insolvency – known as the salvage clause - is not illegitimate state aid.
In a most recent judgment, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed the findings of the EU Commission in a Belgian case, namely that local tax exemptions granted by way of tax rulings to multinational companies constitutes selective and thus illicit State Aid. With this, the ECJ sets aside the first-instance decision of the European General Court and refers the case back for further review on other aspects of the case.
In her Opinion the Advocate General considers that the European Commission erred in finding that Luxembourg had granted unlawful State aid to the Engie group in the form of tax advantages (tax rulings). The AG proposes that the ECJ should uphold the appeals and, consequently, set aside the judgment of the General Court and annul the decision of the EU Commission.
The European Court of Justice in its judgment on two joined cases held today that the General Court wrongly upheld the Commission’s decision on State aid as regards the “tax rulings” issued by the Luxembourg tax authorities. The General Court erred when confirming the reference framework used by the Commission to apply the arm’s length principle to integrated companies in Luxembourg but failing to consider the specific rules implementing that principle in that Member State.
The European Commission has approved, under EU State aid rules, a €40 million German support measure for the construction and operation of a new land-based liquefied natural gas (‘LNG') terminal in Brunsbüttel. The measure will contribute to the security and diversification of energy supplies in Germany and help end dependence on Russian fossil fuels in line with the REPowerEU Plan.
On 30 May 2017 the Supreme Tax Court decided to refer to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the question of whether the real estate transfer tax (RETT) exemption on conversions - in Section 6a Real Estate Transfer Tax Act - constitutes illegal state aid.
The Supreme Tax Court had asked (decision of 13.03.2019 – I R 18/19) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) whether Article 107(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was to be interpreted as meaning that State Aid existed where, under the rules of a Member State, (permanent) losses - incurred by a company from an economic activity maintained without receiving sufficient remuneration to cover its costs - are in principle to be regarded as hidden dividend distributions and accordingly may not reduce the profit of the company, but, in the case of companies in which the majority of voting rights are held directly or indirectly by legal persons governed by public law, those legal consequences are not to be applied to permanent losses arising if such “public” corporations carry ...
In its judgment of today in two joint cases the European Court of Justice held that the European Commission’s review of the tax rulings granted by Luxembourg to the Engie group infringed EU law. Hence, the ECJ sets aside the judgment of the General Court and annuls the decision of the EU Commission.
On 21 July 2021 Luxembourg has filed an appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 in the joined cases T-516/18 and T-525/18 (Luxembourg and Engie Global LNG Holding and Others / Commission) regarding certain tax rulings concerning the transfer of business activities within the Engie group.
The General Court of the European Union confirmed in its judgment of 18 May 2022 that the German aid for the rescue of Condor is compatible with EU law. The fact that Condor’s financial difficulties were caused by the Thomas Cook group being placed into liquidation did not preclude the approval of that aid by the Commission.
