Let’s try to clarify some misinterpretations of the Apple Judgment and its repercussions. Here goes my first thread /1
No, the @EUCourtPress has not given carte blanche to tax competition between Member States or to aggressive tax planning by companies. The Court makes clear the Commission can challenge these under State aid rules /2
Yes, the agreement between Ireland and Apple didn’t look great. But that is no reason to presume the existence of an advantage; if anything, it should make it easier to find the evidence establishing that such advantage exists /3
No, the Judgment is not different from the Starbucks Judgment from September 2019. That was no drama, and this isn’t either /4
No, this is not a humiliation for the Commission. You win some, you lose some. It is part of the game in systems based on the rule of law. The Commission tried its best; it can learn the lesson and do better next time. Apple was one shot; the Commission is a repeat player /5
No, the Judgment is not a triumph of ”formalism” over substance. In systems governed by the rule of law, the requirement that infringements be proved, not simply presumed, is paramount. If there has to be one red line, this is it /6
No, the Judgment does not close off the State aid route, nor does it necessarily highlight the need for harmonization/regulation. Tax harmonization has always been necessary, and this Judgment doesn’t change anything /7
No, self-proclaimed ”progressive” commentators with ties to Apple have not jumped to the occasion to argue that ”judges don’t get it”, that we should “take State aid away from Courts” or “reverse the burden of proof” #doublestandards /8
Yes, the EU system of judicial review works regardless of the identify and nationality of companies and regardless of the political and economic interests at stake / End of thread
