Sign up for tax alert emails    GTNU homepage    Tax newsroom    Email document    Print document    Download document

February 18, 2019

General Court of the European Union annuls Commissionís decision on Belgian excess profit rulings


By Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016,1 the European Commission (the Commission) found that the excess profit rulings issued by Belgium constituted an illegal aid scheme in breach of the European Union (EU) State aid rules.2 Furthermore, the Commission3 ordered that the aid granted be recovered from the beneficiaries.

Accordingly, by the Program Law of 25 December 2016, a recovery procedure was introduced in Belgian Tax law. The amount of aid to be recovered was essentially the amount of taxes not paid due to the rulings, plus accumulated interest from the date the alleged aid was given until the date of effective repayment. The amount was to be calculated for every taxable period as from the period in which the aid was obtained through the taxable period relating to tax year 2015.

The Court’s ruling

The General Court of the European Union (the General Court) has now ruled4 that the Commission incorrectly qualified the Belgian excess profit ruling system as a broader ”scheme” rather than examining the 66 tax rulings individually. According to the General Court, the fact that the Belgian tax authorities had a margin of discretion over all of the essential elements of the excess profit rulings, allowing them to influence the amount and the characteristics of the tax exemption and the conditions under which the exemption was granted, precludes the existence of an aid scheme. This was also precluded by the fact that excess profit exemptions did not follow automatically from Belgian tax law, but necessarily depended on the adoption of further implementing measures (i.e., tax rulings) by the Belgian tax authorities. Finally, the General Court, notes that there was not a systematic approach on the part of the Belgian tax authorities and that the taxpayers eligible for an excess profit ruling were not defined in a general and abstract manner.

Based on the General Court’s decision, the Commission has to decide whether to appeal the judgment to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Moreover, the Commission will have to decide whether to start examining individual excess profit rulings in light of the General Court’s finding. If the Commission files an appeal against the General Court’s judgment, it may well await the outcome of that appeal (which may take another two-three years) before potentially looking into individual excess profit rulings. If there is an appeal by the Commission, the Belgian tax authorities are unlikely to repay any of the recovered aid before the Court of Justice rules on the appeal.

Where the Commission in other State aid cases typically challenged individual rulings, it only adopted such a general approach in the Belgian excess profit case. The General Court now gives a clear message that the Commission has gone too far by claiming that as a general rule the excess profit exemption is illegal State aid. Where other countries have been gradually changing their tax legislation to align with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Base Erosion and Profit Shifting recommendation and EU Directives, Belgium has been forced to claim back taxes from a large group of taxpayers. This judgment will likely present a call for more cooperation and forward looking policy change.


1. Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667,

2. See EY Global Tax Alert, EU Commission finds Belgium granted illegal state aid and orders recovery, dated 13 January 2016.

3. EU Commission, press release, IP/16/42.

4. Judgment of the General Court, 14 February 2019,;jsessionid=57177CDBB93A04857674E974E707792A?text=&docid=210761&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13546940.

For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following:

EY Brussels
  • Steven Claes |
  • Peter Moreau |
  • Arne Smeets |
EY Antwerp
  • Werner Huygen |
Ernst & Young LLP, Belgian Tax Desk, New York
  • Jean-Charles van Heurck |



The information contained herein is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Ernst & Young LLP to the reader. The reader also is cautioned that this material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader's specific circumstances or needs, and may require consideration of non-tax and other tax factors if any action is to be contemplated. The reader should contact his or her Ernst & Young LLP or other tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Ernst & Young LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein.


Copyright © 2023, Ernst & Young LLP.


All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP.


Any U.S. tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.


"EY" refers to the global organisation, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.


Privacy  |  Cookies  |  BCR  |  Legal  |  Global Code of Conduct