After all, in finding, in the judgments under appeal, that ‘the Court of Justice ruled that a tax concession in favour of taxpayers who sold certain financial assets and could offset the resulting profit in the case of shareholding acquisitions in capital companies having their registered office in certain regions conferred on those taxpayers an advantage which, as a general measure applicable without distinction to all economically active persons, did not constitute aid within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Treaty’, (76) the General Court, as the Commission submits in its observations, unjustifiably conflates paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment of 19 September 2000 in Germany v Commission (C‐156/98, EU:C:2000:467), its reading of which is therefore erroneous.
yksiss?? tarkoitettuna tukena, koska toimenpide oli soveltamisalaltaan yleinen ja sit?? sovellettiin erotuksetta kaikkiin taloudellisiin toimijoihin???,(76) se sekoitti perusteettomasti toisiinsa 19.9.2000 annetun tuomion Saksa v. komissio (C??? 156/98, EU:C:2000:467) 22 kohdan ja 23 kohdan ja tulkitsi siten tuomiota virheellisesti, kuten komissio totesi huomautuksissaan.EurLex-2 EurLex-2