# C_2011058EN.01001201.xml

| 24.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/12

---

Action brought on 22 December 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-17/10)

2011/C 58/06

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, represented by Dr Andrea Entner-Koch, acting as Agent for the Principality of Liechtenstein, EEA Coordination Unit, Austrasse 79/Europark, 9490 Vaduz, Fürstentum Liechtenstein.

The Principality of Liechtenstein requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 regarding the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 regarding the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

| 2. | in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision;
  and |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision;

and

| 3. | order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 declared that the tax exemptions applicable to investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 declared that the tax exemptions applicable to investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from investment companies receiving it from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefitted from the exemptions following their repeal in 2006. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from investment companies receiving it from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefitted from the exemptions following their repeal in 2006.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority held that recovery should be affected without delay, and in any event by 3 March 2011, in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority held that recovery should be affected without delay, and in any event by 3 March 2011, in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.

| — | The applicant contends that the tax provisions at stake do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant contends that the tax provisions at stake do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| — | The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | erred when it applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to the taxation of investment companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, and when it ordered the repayment of the alleged unlawful aid from the investment companies as from 15 March 1997, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

erred when it applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to the taxation of investment companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, and when it ordered the repayment of the alleged unlawful aid from the investment companies as from 15 March 1997,

| — | violated the general principles of EEA law in ordering the recovery of alleged unlawful aid, |
| --- | --- |

—

violated the general principles of EEA law in ordering the recovery of alleged unlawful aid,

| — | did not provide adequate reasoning in its contested Decision, as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

did not provide adequate reasoning in its contested Decision, as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

---