Report 2011 - EFTA Court

enefits, such as subsidies themselves, but also measures
which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally
included in the budget of an undertaking and which, thus, without
being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in
character and have the same effect (compare, inter alia, Joined
Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05 Air Liquide Industries Belgium [2006]
ECR i-5293, paragraph 29, and the case-law cited).
70 A measure by which the public authorities grant certain
undertakings a tax exemption which, although not involving a
transfer of State resources, places the persons to whom the
tax exemption applies in a more favourable financial situation
than other taxpayers, constitutes State aid within the meaning
of Article 61(1) EEA (see, for the purposes of Article 107(1)
TFEU, Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España [1994] ECR i-877,
paragraph 14, and Air Liquide Industries Belgium, cited above,
paragraph 30).
71 The wording of Article 61(1) EEA requires that a measure must
favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in
order to be classified as State aid. The selective application of a
measure therefore constitutes one of the criteria inherent in the
notion of State aid (see Case E-6/98 Norway v ESA [1999] EFTA
Ct. Rep., p. 74, paragraph 33, and Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04
and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord and Others [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep., p.
117, paragraph 77).
72 When applying this criterion, it is necessary to determine whether
the measure in question entails advantages accruing exclusively
to certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity (compare
Cases C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR i-4551,
paragraph 24, C-200/97 Ecotrade [1998] ECR i-7907, paragraphs
40-41, and Belgium v Commission, cited above, paragraph 26). it
must be noted, however, that aid in the form of a general scheme
may concern a whole economic sector and still be covered by
Article 61(1) EEA (compare Cases C-251/97 France v Commission
[1999] ECR i-6639, paragraph 36, and Belgium v Commission,
cited above, paragraph 33).
Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 44
Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority