The EU General Court clarifies the burden of proof that has to be met by the Commission to demonstrate the existence of an advantage in the context of tax rulings (Starbucks)

Publications Advocate General Bobek provides an analytical framework to assess the appropriateness of ‘by object’ qualifications while clarifying and consolidating the case-law on the dichotomy between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions (Budapest Bank) publication dateDec 2019 publication descriptionConcurrences publication descriptionOn 5 September 2019, Advocate General Bobek delivered his Opinion in the Budapest Bank case following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Hungarian Supreme Court. AG Bobek advised on several matters such as the existence of an obligation for National Competition Authorities to expressly indicate which type of collusion they condemn and whether the facilitating, accepting and implementing of an agreement amounts to a concerted practice. However, this Opinion is particularly interesting because of the clarification it brings to the analytical framework to assess whether a practice could be considered a ‘by object’ restriction. Other author Daphné Van der Eycken See publication Advocate General Bobek provides an analytical framework to assess the appropriateness of ‘by object’ qualifications while clarifying and consolidating the case-law on the dichotomy between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions (Budapest Bank)See publication The EU General Court clarifies the burden of proof that has to be met by the Commission to demonstrate the existence of an advantage in the context of tax rulings (Starbucks) publication dateDec 2019 publication descriptionConcurrences publication descriptionOn 24 September 2019, the General Court rendered its first two Judgments assessing under which circumstances EU State aid rules can curtail Member States’ sovereignty to adopt individual tax rulings. In the Starbucks Judgment, the GC ruled in favour of Starbucks since the European Commission failed to prove the existence of an advantage within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU. The Judgment provides useful guidance in relation to the burden of proof the Commission has to meet to demonstrate if and when an advantage is conferred by an individual tax ruling