Communication: new case No. 0112 of 2022

IDENTIFIER
62022TN0112
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
General Court
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
1
REFERENCED
0
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: new case

Judgment



10.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/31


Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Svenska Bankföreningen and Länsförsäkringar Bank v Commission

(Case T-112/22)

(2022/C 191/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ideella föreningen Svenska Bankföreningen med firma Svenska Bankföreningen, Näringsverksamhet (Stockholm, Sweden), Länsförsäkringar Bank AB (Stockholm) (represented by: P. Hansson, M. Eriksson and M. Persson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s decision of 24 November 2021 in Case SA.56348(2021/N) — Sweden: Swedish tax on credit institutions; (1)

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the applicants’ procedural rights, in that it failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

It is argued that the Commission objectively faced serious difficulties during the preliminary examination of the notified measure and should have initiated the formal investigation procedure. For example:

The applicants allege that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the parameters of the reference system identified by the Commission were clearly not consistent with the objective of the risk tax.

The applicants further maintain that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the credit institutions that fall inside or outside the scope of the risk tax are in a comparable legal and factual situation, in the light of the objective of the tax system.

In addition, it is argued that the Commission misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice, when assessing the threshold for taxation.

The applicants also argue that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that there was no justification of the difference in treatment and that it was under no circumstances proportionate.

Finally, the applicants assert that the examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination procedure was insufficient and incomplete.


(1)  COM(2021) 8637 final and see publication in OJ 2021 C 511, p. 2.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.