Report 2011 - EFTA Court

the scheme at issue, without being required to examine each
particular case in which it applies (see, for comparison, Case
C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR i-3671). Therefore,
ESA is not required to examine each particular case in which
the regime applies (see, to that effect, Case C-278/00 Greece v
Commission [2004] ECR i-3997, paragraph 24, and the case-law
cited therein).
58 For the purposes of applying Article 61(1) EEA to an aid scheme,
it is sufficient that the scheme benefits certain undertakings, a
finding not called into question by the fact that it may also benefit
entities which are not undertakings (compare Case C-66/02 Italy v
Commission [2005] ECR i-10901, paragraphs 91 and 92).
59 it follows that ESA could legitimately confine itself to showing
that, although it might be the case that certain risks could not
be insured in the market, or not at a reasonable price, captive
insurance companies in Liechtenstein did not exclusively provide
services not available from commercial insurers (see page 16 of
the contested decision).
60 in the light of the foregoing, the argument that captive insurance
companies do not constitute “undertakings” within the meaning
of Article 61(1) EEA must be dismissed as unfounded.
Selectivity
Arguments of the parties
61 in case the Court upholds ESA’s finding that captive insurance
companies, or part of their activities, qualify as “undertakings”,
the applicants argue that the contested tax provisions are not
selective measures favouring certain undertakings or the provision
of certain goods within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Accordingly, the applicants contend that ESA’s findings on this
issue are erroneous.
62 The Principality of Liechtenstein argues that in order to constitute
State aid, a measure must be selective by favouring certain
companies. Liechtenstein and Swisscom further submit that tax
measures are only selective if they unreasonably discriminate
Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority
Summary Judgment
CAses Case
e-xx/x
e-8/11
e-4/10
e-6/10
e-7/10
41