Report 2011 - EFTA Court

163 in the case at hand, the situation is different as the applicants
could not entertain any legitimate expectations based on
decisions by the Commission or ESA concerning measures
analogous to the Liechtenstein tax provisions on captive insurance
companies. On the contrary, it must be observed that, at the very
latest, from 6 November 2001 onwards, when the Commission’s
decision to open the formal investigation regarding the tax
measures in favour of captive insurance companies in the Åland
islands was published in the Official Journal, there was clearly
a situation of uncertainty as to the legality of the contested
Liechtenstein tax provisions, as was noted in paragraph 149
above.
164 it follows that, with regard to the issue of recovery, the
circumstances at issue in the present case are not comparable to
those at issue in the decisions referred to by the applicants where
the Commission did not order recovery of aid. Consequently,
the applicants have not demonstrated any infringement of the
principle of equal treatment.
165 in light of the foregoing, the applicants’ plea based on
infringement of the principle of legal certainty, equal treatment
and homogeneity must be rejected.
VIII THE FOURTH MAIN PLEA, ALLEGING A FAILURE TO STATE
ADEqUATE REASONS UNDER ARTICLE 16 OF THE SCA
Insufficient statement of reasons
Arguments of the parties
166 Finally, the applicants argue that the Decision lacks reasoning
on a number of points. The Principality of Liechtenstein and
Swisscom argue that the reasoning provided is inadequate on
several issues, such as the extent to which there is a commercial
market for all captive insurance companies, the selectivity of
the contested tax provisions and on the recovery of the alleged
State aid. in addition, Reassur argues specifically that the
Decision lacks reasoning in support of ESA’s assessment that
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
69