Report 2011 - EFTA Court

33 Finally, ESA determined that although, in the light of Commission
practice, beneficiaries might have entertained legitimate
expectations that the tax measures did not constitute State aid
when they were introduced, all beneficiaries should have been
aware by the date of publication of the decision to open a formal
investigation into the similar tax measures in the Åland islands
on 6 November 2001, at the latest, that the measures were likely
to involve incompatible State aid. Therefore, the Liechtenstein
authorities were ordered to take all necessary measures to recover
from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Article 1 of the
Decision and unlawfully made available to those parties from 6
November 2001 to 31 December 2009.
34 The operative part of the contested Decision, in its relevant
points, reads as follows:
Article 1
The aid measures which the Liechtenstein authorities have
implemented in favour of captive insurance companies under [82a and
88)(3)] of the Tax Act implemented on 18 December 1997 constitute
unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA
Agreement, which is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA
Agreement.
Article 2
1. Liechtenstein shall repeal the measures referred to in Article
1 such that they do not apply from the fiscal year 2010 (inclusive)
onwards.
2. The Liechtenstein authorities shall inform the Authority of the
legislative steps which will be taken to abolish the measure by 30 June
2010.
Article 3
1. The Liechtenstein authorities shall take all necessary measures
to recover from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Article 1 and
unlawfully made available to them, from 6 November 2001 to 31
December 2009.
Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 34
Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority