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

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).

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

Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer

Click here to see the ad(s)
Alle artikels Europees recht

Laatste artikels Europees recht

CJEU doesn't like the taste of copyright

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") decided that the taste of a food product is not ...

Read more

CJEU: VAT on share disposal costs recoverable in certain cases

VAT on costs incurred in connection with an envisaged share disposal is in principle not recoverable. However, if the reas...

Read more

CJEU gives guidance on self-cleaning in relation to competition law infringements

In a recent judgement of 24 October 2018 (n° C-124/17, Vossloh Laeis GmbH v. Stadtwerke München GmbH), the Europe...

Read more

European Commission charges Slovak rail company with dawn raid obstruction

On 25 September 2018, the European Commission sent a Statement of Objections to ZSSK, a Slovak rail company, alleging that...

European Commission charges Slovak rail company with dawn raid obstruction Read more

Laatste artikels van Mr. Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer

The European Commission fines Google EUR4.34 billion for abuse of dominance

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

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

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

Read more

The Court of Justice of the EU receives the first preliminary ruling on the EU Damages Directive

A Portuguese court (Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa) has referred the first preliminary ruling request on Directive...

Read more

LexGO Network