Abstract
• This paper examines whether the recovery obligations
in the recent tax cases are acceptable in the light
of the general principles of EU law on legal certainty,
legitimate expectations and proportionality.
• It argues that the Commission’s order of recovery
in the tax cases is highly questionable.
• The Commission’s expansive interpretation of State
aid prohibition was not foreseeable and its retrospective
recovery of the State aid is arbitrary and
goes against the principle of legal certainty.
• It concludes that in the Commission could have
used other means of dealing with advanced pricing
agreements on tax to provide clarity and respect the
principle of proportionality.
in the recent tax cases are acceptable in the light
of the general principles of EU law on legal certainty,
legitimate expectations and proportionality.
• It argues that the Commission’s order of recovery
in the tax cases is highly questionable.
• The Commission’s expansive interpretation of State
aid prohibition was not foreseeable and its retrospective
recovery of the State aid is arbitrary and
goes against the principle of legal certainty.
• It concludes that in the Commission could have
used other means of dealing with advanced pricing
agreements on tax to provide clarity and respect the
principle of proportionality.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1-14 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | Journal of European Competition Law & Practice |
Volume | 8 |
Issue number | 6 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 24 Apr 2017 |
Keywords
- State aid, tax, legitimate expectations, legal certainty