In its 26 April judgments in ANGED (C-236/16 and C-237/16, EU:C:2018:291; C-234/16 and C-235/16, EU:C:2018:281) the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that two Spanish regional tax measures levied on large retail establishments above a certain treshold did not confer a selective advantage (within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU) on smaller retail establishments not exceeding those tresholds and consequently not subject to the said taxes. According to the Court's interpretations those tax measures differentiated between groups of undertakings which were not in a similar legal and factual situation in the light of the objective of the measures, provided that the taxes at issue were meant to counteract the harmful environmental and town/country planning effects of retail establishments with large sales areas. As the Court emphasized, "in the absence of EU rules governing the matter, it [fell] within the competence of the Member States, or of intra-State bodies having fiscal autonomy, to designate bases of assessment and to spread the tax burden accross the various factors of production and economic sectors". The assessments provided in the ANGED judgments are legally in line with applicable case-law, however, they substantially depart in their practical results and conclusions from the judgment in World Duty Free Group, which laid down a wide interpretation of de jure selectivity  of tax measures.  The implication is that the bonmot of AG Jacobs from October 2000 (as laid down in PreussenElektra, EU:C:2000:585, par. 157) - according to which the assessment of selectivity is "a difficult exercise with and uncertain outcome" - is still actual today.