The US government applies to intervene in Apple’s EU State Aid case for a second time
13/02/2018

Apple and the Irish government have appealed the 2016 Commission’s Decision whereby Ireland was ordered to recover up to EUR 13 billion from the American IT manufacturer.

The US applied to intervene in the case before the General Court of the EU. However, by order of 15 December 2017 in Case T-892/16, Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v Commission, this application was rejected by the Court due to the US failure to show that it was directly concerned by the decision in question or that it has a particular interest in the case. The US has challenged the Court’s order to reject its application to intervene. The reference of the appeal is C—12/18 P(I).

The procedural rules of the General Court of the EU allow Member States and other interested parties to intervene in a case. Whereas this right is automatically recognised for EU Member States, companies and third countries are required to demonstrate that they have a specific interest in the outcome of the case for the right to intervene to be granted.

In this sense, the US argued that: (i) its tax revenues would decrease if the decision is upheld; (ii) the bilateral tax agreement between Ireland and the US would be negatively affected and (iii) the development of the OECD’s transfer pricing rules may be harmed.

The application to intervene filed by the Irish Business and Employers Association has also been rejected by the General Court of the EU.

It is not common that foreign governments seek to appear in support of a party in EU judicial proceedings. The most recent precedent dates back from 1983, when the government of Dominica intervened in a case relating to banana imports (Order of the Court of Justice of the EU of 23 February 1983 in Joined Cases 91 and 200/82, Chris International Foods Ltd v Commission of the European Communities).

Related : Gomez-Acebo & Pombo ( Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer )

Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer
Partner
mtroncoso@gomezacebo-pombo.com

Click here to see the ad(s)
All articles European Law

Lastest articles European Law

Filmer la police ? La CJUE est plutôt favorable
18/02/2019

C’est un arrêt très attendu qui a été rendu par la CJUE la semaine passée : un cit...

Read more

British nationals working in Belgium: rest assured!
04/02/2019

On February 1, 2019 the federal Council of Ministers approved a draft royal decree allowing 21.000 British nationals curre...

British nationals working in Belgium: rest assured! Read more

Brexit: The Morning after the Night Before
23/01/2019

The British Prime Minister, Mrs Teresa May, lost the Parliamentary vote on the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the Eu...

Read more

CJEU Denies SPC for Medical Devices Incorporating an Ancillary Active Ingredient
10/01/2019

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently ruled that, unlike medicinal products, medical devices incorpor...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer

The Commission clears the acquisition of parts of Fox by Disney with commitments
29/11/2018

On 14 September 2018, Disney noti ed its proposed acquisition of certain parts of Fox’ business. Disney and Fox are ...

Read more

The European Commission fines Google EUR4.34 billion for abuse of dominance
03/08/2018

The European Commission has found that Google has been imposing illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and m...

Read more

New EU Regulation to ban unjustified geo-blocking in the internal mark
02/04/2018

Regulation 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjusti ed geo-blockin...

Read more

A new Belgian Code of Companies and Associations
19/03/2018

An important modification in the field of Belgian corporate law is now on track and it also concerns non-profit associatio...

Read more

LexGO Network